vulnerable

I couldn't believe I let him see me like this, unable to fend for myself. I fumed in disgust at my vulnerability. I didn't want Evan to think I needed protecting. I pulled back my torment and let the numb blanket envelop me, pushing away the stirred memories, the noise of the crowd, and the trembling that still lay beneath the surface. I stared at the flames licking at the darkness and everything was lost as I sank deeper into nothingness.

No matter how much you cry, the tears will dry. No matter how many nightmares, flashbacks, visions, or terrors you endure, they will pass. To weather these in order to find your true self and the happiness you deserve, that is not a risk. To waste the time you have in this body, never showing your soul to yourself or anyone else, living in fearful misery _ that is really the most dangerous thing you can do.

Most women do not have a relationship with God, as they are either unwilling to have one or unaware of how to have one, so they choose a human partner.___t__ not about gender or age, nor even social conditioning, religious belief or other external preferences. To surrender as Love__n a feminine way__s to become vulnerable, fragile, soft, sincere, open hearted, and __ound-able_ as a choice to the alternative of living miserably inside walls and masks, hiding from pain and Joy.

True devotion and humility is when you carelessly allow yourself to fall in love with things you consider will make you look inferior, which in essence, makes you superior.

Before you call yourself a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or any other theology, learn to be human first.

Wholeness is birthed through vulnerability and sensitivity, which is often conceived in brokenness. Jesus taught me this.

The more we love, the more it hurts, and the more we have to let go.

Sure, you can break a man. Bend his will, even, but be careful with the ones that break easily. Those are the ones you have to keep a close eye on. Those are the ones that play possum and hide in the shadows. Just waiting for their time to strike! That's when you're most vulnerable. When you're surrounded by friends.

Jesus often calls us to risk. He asks us to be vulnerable, to be authentic, so others can see Him in and through us.

What he wanted was Megan wanting him... but not needing him. Not vulnerable to him. Sure as help not trying to leave him over and over again... and simply failing.

Loving someone can never be difficult, it's when you judge the other person that everything tumbles.. Loving someone is easy, so I fall, rise or fly in love over and over again.. what's difficult is being loved in return.. Unrequited love is amusing.. It's more fun when the person you love doesn't know you do.. what's difficult is when he does.. and that makes you what you'd never want to be - Vulnerable.

An abolitionist is, as I have developed that notion, one who (1) maintains that we cannot justify animal use, however __umane_ it may be; (2) rejects welfare campaigns that seek more __umane_ exploitation, or single-issue campaigns that seek to portray one form of animal exploitation as morally worse than other forms of animal exploitation (e.g., a campaign that seeks to distinguish fur from wool or leather); and (3) regards veganism, or the complete rejection of the consumption or use of any animal products, as a moral baseline. An abolitionist regards creative, nonviolent vegan education as the primary form of activism, because she understands that the paradigm will not shift until we address demand and educate people to stop thinking of animals as things we eat, wear, or use as our resources.

We should never present flesh as somehow morally distinguishable from dairy. To the extent it is morally wrong to eat flesh, it is as morally wrong _ and possibly more morally wrong _ to consume dairy

I am a great believer in not pushing each other__ __uttons_ just because we know where they are! That__ part of trusting each other. We need to trust that our vulnerabilities and challenges are safe with the person we love.

There are some animal advocates who say that to maintain that veganism is the moral baseline is objectionable because it is __udgmental,_ or constitutes a judgment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism and a condemnation that vegetarians (or other consumers of animal products) are __ad_ people. Yes to the first part; no to the second. There is no coherent distinction between flesh and other animal products. They are all the same and we cannot justify consuming any of them. To say that you do not eat flesh but that you eat dairy or eggs or whatever, or that you don__ wear fur but you wear leather or wool, is like saying that you eat the meat from spotted cows but not from brown cows; it makers no sense whatsoever. The supposed __ine_ between meat and everything else is just a fantasy__n arbitrary distinction that is made to enable some exploitation to be segmented off and regarded as __etter_ or as morally acceptable. This is not a condemnation of vegetarians who are not vegans; it is, however, a plea to those people to recognize their actions do not conform with a moral principle that they claim to accept and that all animal products are the result of imposing suffering and death on sentient beings. It is not a matter of judging individuals; it is, however, a matter of judging practices and institutions. And that is a necessary component of ethical living.

If we are ever going to see a paradigm shift, we have to be clear about how we want the present paradigm to shift.We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything that deserves to be called an __nimal rights_ movement. If __nimal rights_ means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal exploitation; we cannot justify creating animals as human resources, however __umane_ that treatment may be.We must stop thinking that people will find veganism __aunting_ and that we have to promote something less than veganism. If we explain the moral ideas and the arguments in favor of veganism clearly, people will understand. They may not all go vegan immediately; in fact, most won__. But we should always be clear about the moral baseline. If someone wants to do less as an incremental matter, let that be her/his decision, and not something that we advise to do. The baseline should always be clear. We should never be promoting __appy_ or __umane_ exploitation as morally acceptable.

The notion that we should promote __appy_ or __umane_ exploitation as __aby steps_ ignores that welfare reforms do not result in providing significantly greater protection for animal interests; in fact, most of the time, animal welfare reforms do nothing more than make animal exploitation more economically productive by focusing on practices, such as gestation crates, the electrical stunning of chickens, or veal crates, that are economically inefficient in any event. Welfare reforms make animal exploitation more profitable by eliminating practices that are economically vulnerable. For the most part, those changes would happen anyway and in the absence of animal welfare campaigns precisely because they do rectify inefficiencies in the production process. And welfare reforms make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation. The __appy_ meat/animal products movement is clear proof of that. We would never advocate for __umane_ or "happy_ human slavery, rape, genocide, etc. So, if we believe that animals matter morally and that they have an interest not only in not suffering but in continuing to exist, we should not be putting our time and energy into advocating for __umane_ or __appy_ animal exploitation.

If we take the position that an assessment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism is not possible because we are all __n our own journey,_ then moral assessment becomes completely impossible or is speciesist. It is impossible because if we are all __n our own journey,_ then there is nothing to say to the racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobe, etc. If we say that those forms of discrimination are morally bad, but, with respect to animals, we are all __n our own journey_ and we cannot make moral assessments about, for instance, dairy consumption, then we are simply being speciesist and not applying the same moral analysis to nonhumans that we apply to the human context.