4 ms·

The concepts of "better" and "suffering" are a matter of opinion, as you have agreed. I eat meat because that is acceptable to me and also because supermarkets

The concepts of "better" and "suffering" are a matter of opinion, as you have agreed. I eat meat because that is acceptable to me and also because supermarkets still sell it. Who am I to claim what people objectively should and should not do? Not even Buddha did that. What I am trying to get at when referring to other people also not eating meat is: Are you really motivated by a moral cause, or are you taking the easy route, signalling away your guilt like many of the western middle class on this forum and elsewhere? Does your choice not to eat meat and prevent animal suffering, not really just mirror a realisation that you yourself are at the wrong end of the hierarchy?

brigandish 7y ago
I thought we'd agreed that objectivity exists within subjectivity? To keep banging on that everything is subjective is to miss the point - there's objectivity too, and there is suffering (as The Buddha rightly pointed out) and it can be objectively measured. I also have not made any claim about what others should do - are you going to keep up with the straw men? It's getting a bit long in the tooth. My initial response was about the way Koobla makes the distinction. > Are you really motivated by a moral cause I wouldn't call it a moral cause but a choice between suffering and not suffering. > or are you taking the easy route, signalling away your guilt like many of the western middle class on this forum and elsewhere? No, I'm not guilty and I'm working class and I've no need to signal virtue, I'm not religious. > Does your choice not to eat meat and prevent animal suffering It does reduce and prevent animal suffering, good of you to… admit that. > not really just mirror a realisation that you yourself are at the wrong end of the hierarchy? No. The realisation was and continues to be that my choices can reduce unnecessary suffering, for myself and others. "Wrong end" is subjective. "Hierarchy" is subjective… Either you're going to start using terms in a normal way or you're going to remain inconsistent in your use (or, more precisely, convenient in your application) and continue to provide no argument at all.
- 0db532a0 7y ago
  We’re speaking a different language. I’m tapping out. I wish you the best.

brigandish 7y ago

I thought we'd agreed that objectivity exists within subjectivity? To keep banging on that everything is subjective is to miss the point - there's objectivity too, and there is suffering (as The Buddha rightly pointed out) and it can be objectively measured. I also have not made any claim about what others should do - are you going to keep up with the straw men? It's getting a bit long in the tooth. My initial response was about the way Koobla makes the distinction. > Are you really motivated by a moral cause I wouldn't call it a moral cause but a choice between suffering and not suffering. > or are you taking the easy route, signalling away your guilt like many of the western middle class on this forum and elsewhere? No, I'm not guilty and I'm working class and I've no need to signal virtue, I'm not religious. > Does your choice not to eat meat and prevent animal suffering It does reduce and prevent animal suffering, good of you to… admit that. > not really just mirror a realisation that you yourself are at the wrong end of the hierarchy? No. The realisation was and continues to be that my choices can reduce unnecessary suffering, for myself and others. "Wrong end" is subjective. "Hierarchy" is subjective… Either you're going to start using terms in a normal way or you're going to remain inconsistent in your use (or, more precisely, convenient in your application) and continue to provide no argument at all.

0db532a0 7y ago
We’re speaking a different language. I’m tapping out. I wish you the best.