11 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuI have told you that I eat meat and that my spiritual belief system does not prohibit me from doing so. That is a true and honest statement of my belief. Having listened to what you have told me, I have reached the conclusion that we disagree about this aspect of lifestyle and the spiritual tenets that underpin it. Reaching that conclusion is also a true and honest statement of the difference between my belief and your belief. Once again - despite your assertions to the contrary - there has been no "dishonesty" on my part.
You have told me you support animal cruelty.
I have told you that animal cruelty has no place in spirituality.
You have said it does.
That is dishonest
11 Feb 11
Originally posted by souvereinMy values are for truth.
You are a sloppy reader; FMF has showed quite a lot of himself. But I fear you are not interested in what other people think. You are stuck with your own hermeneutic thinking
To be honest 😉 if I had to choose a new neighbour it would definitely be FMF and not you. The way you try to push your values through people's throat is not my cup of tea.
I will not support error.
If others present error I will not accept it.
When others knowingly present error they are dishonest.
If they unknowingly present error they are innocent.
11 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuOne of my key beliefs is that I do not subscribe to a religion and I do not recognize or subscribe to the assertions (and in your case personal abuse) of religionists. I could hardly be more clear.
He will not present his beliefs.
Religionists, like yourself, "present" their "beliefs" in the form of "instructions" for others to follow. I am not a religionist. I have shared and discussed my spiritual beliefs on other threads and on one thread in particular.
You have been informed where this is. And you have shown no interest. Showing no interest is one of the least insulting ways you have treated me.
11 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFYou have fabricated your spirituality, in a way to make a wrong, a right.
I have told you that I eat meat and that my spiritual belief system does not prohibit me from doing so. That is a true and honest statement of my belief. Having listened to what you have told me, I have reached the conclusion that we disagree about this aspect of lifestyle and the spiritual tenets that underpin it. Reaching that conclusion is also a true and hon ...[text shortened]... e again - despite your assertions to the contrary - there has been no "dishonesty" on my part.
Therefore your spirituality is bogus.
This is dishonest
11 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuPresumably "word games" is another off kilter disparaging 'synonym' for disagreement. Or are you to some degree intellectually intimidated by the way that I express myself? Your mention of "word games" - when in fact I am expressing myself lucidly and forthrightly - and respectfully too - raises the suspicion that the raw personal abuse you have been directing at me is rooted in feelings of inadequacy and defensiveness.
Word games will not make animal cruelty spiritual or right.
Certainly - and I say this in good faith, and in my continuing effort to help you become a better advocate of your beliefs - there is a rather unsettling, half-literate, fumbling, unconvincing bumpkin-esque naivety about your writing. Your lashing out about "word games", come to think of it, does seem to be offering a revelation that you yourself - with your amply demonstrated incapacity for self-reflection - might be unable to cotton on to.
11 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuI think you'll find that the crux of this matter is that we disagree. You accusing me of lying does not alter this plain fact. Do you accept that we disagree? Yes you clearly do. That makes it a "fact", at least as far as you and me are concerned.
You have fabricated your spirituality, in a way to make a wrong, a right.
Therefore your spirituality is bogus.
This is dishonest
You should stop to think: why would FMF misrepresent or fabricate or lie about his own beliefs? The answer of course is: FMF wouldn't. FMF doesn't. And FMF isn't. Therefore vishvahetu accusing FMF of lying is, to put the best face on it, a little off target.
11 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou must be some sought of intellectual, and you intellectually play with words to turn things around and twist their meaning.
I think you'll find that the crux of this matter is that we disagree. You accusing me of lying does not alter this plain fact. Do you accept that we disagree? Yes you clearly do. That makes it a "fact", at least as far as you and me are concerned.
You should stop to think: why would FMF misrepresent or fabricate or lie about his own beliefs? The answer of cou fore vishvahetu accusing FMF of lying is, to put the best face on it, a little off target.
You intellectualize your comments to turn wrongs into rights.
All people disagree, because its part of the human condition.
But lets bring it back to the main point of concern.
You support animal slaughter.
It is a universal truth that animal slaughter causes suffering to animals.
It has nothing to do with belief systems....but it is a truth that cannot be denied.
Now I said, that any person including you who supports animal slaughter, is also supporting animal suffering...agreed.
Now it is truth that causing animal suffering is wrong...agreed.
Now where you are being dishonest......is saying that FMF is not wrong because he doesn't belief he is wrong....do you see that.
FMF doesn't believe he is wrong....so he has managed to turn a wrong into a right.
Turning a wrong into a right by simply believing you are right ...is dishonest
If you want to be an honest person, all you have to do is say the following, "FMF supports animal slaughter and suffering, and he knows it is wrong but he cannot control his mind and senses, and so he will continue to support it"...........And by saying this, it will at least make you an honest person......instead of being a dishonest person for denying it.
12 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou have made it quite clear that you do not eat meat and that this self-prohibition and lifestyle choice is underpinned by your spiritual beliefs. I believe that you are completely sincere and truthful when you state this.
You must be some sought of intellectual, and you intellectually play with words to turn things around and twist their meaning.
You intellectualize your comments to turn wrongs into rights.
All people disagree, because its part of the human condition.
But lets bring it back to the main point of concern.
You support animal slaughter.
It is a ...[text shortened]... at least make you an honest person......instead of being a dishonest person for denying it.
I also believe that you are completely sincere and truthful when you state that you believe that what you believe is a "universal truth". However, I do not agree with you. I recognize that your elevation of your belief - in your mind - to something that objectively applies to me, without question, and whether I agree or not, is a belief that you have arrived at in all sincerity.
However, I do not believe that you are right when you assert that your firm and earnest conviction is a "universal truth" because, according to my belief system, which - in this matter, at least - is shared by thousands of millions of spiritual beings all across the world, and which differs from your belief system, there is no objective spiritually-based prohibition and it is not a "universal truth" to claim that there is.
Furthermore, I do not claim that my own spiritual belief - that there is no objective spiritually-based prohibition on the eating of meat - is a "universal truth". I believe that I would look foolish if I claimed that my spiritual views on the eating of meat constituted an objective spiritually-based prohibition that was external to me and that applied to everyone else. I say this with all due respect, sincerity and honesty and in good faith.
12 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuMan, your argumentative style is right up there with Rush Limbaugh, et al.
You must be some sought of intellectual, and you intellectually play with words to turn things around and twist their meaning.
You intellectualize your comments to turn wrongs into rights.
All people disagree, because its part of the human condition.
But lets bring it back to the main point of concern.
You support animal slaughter.
It is a ...[text shortened]... at least make you an honest person......instead of being a dishonest person for denying it.
"You must be some sought of intellectual, and you intellectually play with words to turn things around and twist their meaning."
Stop being dishonest. Yes, that's what I said.
You always use the terms "animal slaughter" or "animal cruelty" instead of what you really mean, which is the simple killing of animals. Just say "animal killing". But you won't do that, though, because it just doesn't contain the same emotional impact of the words "cruelty" or "slaughter".
You keep railing against those you deem "dishonest", when you are JUST as dishonest as they are, perhaps even more so.
Everyone is against animal cruelty. There are laws against it in most municipalities. You have no argument there. But you use the term when describing killing an animal for food, which is not what animal cruelty is about. You are being dishonest in your approach.
Same with the word slaughter. You use it because it is a more emotional word, because no one is for the wholesale slaughter of anything. But you use it because you can then say "Oh, so you are for slaughtering animals" when that is not the truth. People can accept the killing of animals for food without condoning cruelty or slaughter. So please stop being dishonest.
This is the same angle used by conservative talk-show hosts when they talk about liberals. They use the most emotion-laden words they can think of to get people to feel an emotional response against liberals. You do the same thing here, only your target is Christians and others who think your ideas are ridiculous. That's just as dishonest.
So you eschew dishonesty? Then stop being dishonest in your speech. Just call it what it is, "killing animals", instead of what it is not.
But you won't, because that will take away one of your biggest tools.
"You must be some sought of intellectual, and you intellectually play with words to turn things around and twist their meaning."
So just who is being dishonest? That's right. You are.
12 Feb 11
Originally posted by SuzianneIndeed. vishvahetu deliberately uses words incorrectly. Cruelty is "the deliberate, excessive or unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering". Humans eat meat. Humans do not eat live animals. The animals are slaughtered - not an "emotional" word at all as far as I am concerned - so that they can be eaten. Slaughter means "the killing of animals (as for food)". It is a technical term.
Everyone is against animal cruelty. There are laws against it in most municipalities. You have no argument there. But you use the term when describing killing an animal for food, which is not what animal cruelty is about. You are being dishonest in your approach.
Many would call vishvahetu's calculated misuse of words profoundly dishonest, but I prefer to think that he is sincere when he believes that it is OK to deliberately uses words incorrectly. I assume that it is some kind of ends-justifies-the-means type approach, applied in good faith by him.
I do, however, think that he is extraordinarily vain - he and I will have an honest disagreement over that, I reckon - but I assume that exhibiting extreme vanity and a kind of angry, tyrannical certainty is part and parcel of his Vedic belief system, and that he sincerely believes he is justified in heaping raw personal abuse on those who disagree with him or have belief systems he personally doesn't share.
12 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF(Dont quite know where to put this , but it seems to follow on from what you are saying.)
Indeed. vishvahetu deliberately uses words incorrectly. Cruelty is "the deliberate, excessive or unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering". Humans eat meat. Humans do not eat live animals. The animals are slaughtered - not an "emotional" word at all as far as I am concerned - so that they can be eaten. Slaughter means "the killing of animals (as for food)". abuse on those who disagree with him or have belief systems he personally doesn't share.
After repeating himself many times and consistenlty being obstinate about his reluctance to change his ways, I think Vishva needs to do somehting. Something different. Surely he cant go on with the same angles and "debating" techniques that he has been employing.
Ok. He is new to this media. Granted.(This is) one of the few things which has kept me reading his posts.Another is his great reference material. But sadly, the other thing is, to see if his style will change.
This has been played out enough now, I think, hence the title of divegeesters' ("troll" ) thread. Totally understood from my end.
Vishva has said that he is presenting the truth to that one who may be out there, listening intenlty, and being enlightened by his words.
Is anyone out there listening to his words, (in that "listening intently
" manner, ie. as someone who is being changed/converted)? Now is the time to pipe up if you are.
It seems clear to me now, that no one is listening to him.
I think I would come closest as someone that is willing to engage in his message(s). But I can tell you in all certainty, I wont be making any radical changes in my spiritual thinking. Perhaps some fine-tuning but thats about it.
So if no one is listening to him, ie. if no one is listening to you , Vishva, why persist in that manner? It seems counter intuitive now to continue in the same vein.
I believe sonhouse asked you a few decent questions back there somewhere as well. Do you think he is hanging on your every word? Is he the one that you are talking your truth to?
I doubt it.
12 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFThe intellectual has again cleverly twisted words to turn wrong into right.
Indeed. vishvahetu deliberately uses words incorrectly. Cruelty is "the deliberate, excessive or unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering". Humans eat meat. Humans do not eat live animals. The animals are slaughtered - not an "emotional" word at all as far as I am concerned - so that they can be eaten. Slaughter means "the killing of animals (as for food)". ...[text shortened]... abuse on those who disagree with him or have belief systems he personally doesn't share.
Slaughter houses cause suffering to animals you cannot deny that.
You support slaughter houses you cannot deny that.
When you claim you do not cause suffering to animals you are being dishonest you cannot deny that.
Therefore you barrage of sophisticated words do not save you from your dishonesty, you cannot deny that.
So go away and think about all your trickery you are using to turn wrong into right, and if you are honest you will realize that your behaviour is dishonest.
12 Feb 11
2 edits
The other noteworthy thing on my end is the reactions that Vishy' gotten.
I think most posters have demonstrated their maturity by not stooping to his level.
Someone like divegeester has replied some nasty things early on, (and justifiably so), only to later show his mature , compassionate side later on.
This has been a test to our common sense and our common decency.
Time for change Vishy, time for change
12 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuMaybe this style would work in person, (because the majority of our communication is non-verbal), but clearly labelling FMF things like "intellectual" is not achieving your desired ends.
The intellectual has again cleverly twisted words to turn wrong into right.
Slaughter houses cause suffering to animals you cannot deny that.
You support slaughter houses you cannot deny that.
When you claim you do not cause suffering to animals you are being dishonest you cannot deny that.
Therefore you barrage of sophisticated words do not s ...[text shortened]... turn wrong into right, and if you are honest you will realize that your behaviour is dishonest.
Perhaps the approach you take in "real" life wont work here. Actually, you have proven that it wont.
Cant you communicate your truths with a different, more positive style?
You actually have the attention of some still here. I dare say this will not last long if you persist in this vein.
C'mon man!! Start by putting yourself underneath everyone else , and go from there. (just a suggestion)
12 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuI am not a vegetarian, vishvahetu. I eat meat. Slaughter houses are where meat is produced for human consumption. I have no objection to the slaughter of animals for food. I do not support the deliberate, excessive or unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering, and so I clearly do not support "cruelty".
Slaughter houses cause suffering to animals you cannot deny that.