Lucysnow, I know in many parts of Asia, cats and dogs and other kinds of anmials we consider pets are being eaten. That is their way of life and I understand that, however here in U.S we eat chicken and cows and other farm animals that people keep as pets. I am if you can have an animal as a pet you will develop feelings toward it and it might seem funny to eat it next time. ALso people don't like to watch their food being killed because its not pleasant to watch a living, feeling and breathing living organism dying.
Vegetarian/Nonviolence/Kosher ethics
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Thats because they don't feel that those animals are special to them. Those people probably think of animals as dumb so they can do whatever they want with them. For others its their job and they probably don't think of the animals as part of the family just a business asset, But there are people who have pets and think of them as part of the family. Those people will have mixed feelings about the things they eat. Of course there will be people who just feel that particular individual animal is part of their family and will eat the rest of the species. Actually that is most likely true more than anything, but that is their choice, so its ok.
My belief is that if you see an animal walk by, I would not want to eat it because of the fact that it is living and breathing just like me and it is foloowing its own way of life. Also my way of life would to be a vegetarian, but I respect others that aren't because its their way. I just think their will be doubts because many different animals are being kept as pets and there will be change of direction for some people because they will come to think or understand that the death of those animals might not be worth it to eat them.
I know animals in the ancient past were kept as pets and even though they were like family were eaten because it was the only way to survive, now today there are many choices to choose from and people will probably be picking a new way of life.
I know animals in the ancient past were kept as pets and even though they were like family were eaten because it was the only way to survive, now today there are many choices to choose from and people will probably be picking a new way of life.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Lightgigantic: The point is that the quality of compassion is nurtured by a vegetarian outlook - you may be compassionate to a greater or lesser extent but if you adopt practices that cultivate the quality of compassion then it stands to increase - an obvious way to cultivate a quality is to be attentive in all circumstances where it appears - like for instance if you just "turn off" in reagards to animal slaughter you miss out on an opportunity to operate on a more compassionate level of performance.
How exceptionally obnoxious. Is the air thin up there on your ivory tower? I love those whom believe they are on a higher moral ground than others based on THEIR DIETERY HABITS!! You may be more compassionate but it bleeds of self-gratification, self-satisfaction; in short a very large ego, didnt the buddha have something to say about that? You pretend to be more buddhist than actual buddhists living in a buddhist society most of which have fish and meat in their diet; And t hen to top it all off you compare buying food from locals to a drug dealers selling yabba or heroin. Very good. How well compassion goes with arrogance.
Think you can go back now and answer the questions directed at you in my post as opposed to my response to Perplexity?
Answer those questions and then there can be further dialogue and not the parroting of some adopted system of belief which may or may not have been critiqued. You speak of long term as opposed to short term benefits but dont clarify what you mean by that. I mean do you drive a car? Think of the long term goals as opposed to short term benefits of driving a car.
I dont 'turn off' to anything. My concern for the environment which includes the human animal is based on a broader and more complex political criteria than mere sentimentality towards slaughtered cows. In short its more measured. You are in an intellectual discussion so go back and answer the questions and stop pretending you know what compassion is and that you can identify the level of compassion in others based on what they eat!
Its funny! The buddha says! I am laughing because no actual buddhist living as a buddhist in a buddhist country would ever refer to something 'The buddha said...' Nevermind Hesse who's work is fiction based on myth. Here the buddha is a god and god doesnt 'say' anything. Haha! What records do you have of what the buddha had to say? The man who not only didn't want an image of himself reflected (which happened anyway) but also didn't write anything at all. This reminds me of the same blind acceptance of christians who harp on about the life of jesus which we know almost nothing about. Buddha said indeed!
How exceptionally obnoxious. Is the air thin up there on your ivory tower? I love those whom believe they are on a higher moral ground than others based on THEIR DIETERY HABITS!! You may be more compassionate but it bleeds of self-gratification, self-satisfaction; in short a very large ego, didnt the buddha have something to say about that? You pretend to be more buddhist than actual buddhists living in a buddhist society most of which have fish and meat in their diet; And t hen to top it all off you compare buying food from locals to a drug dealers selling yabba or heroin. Very good. How well compassion goes with arrogance.
Think you can go back now and answer the questions directed at you in my post as opposed to my response to Perplexity?
Answer those questions and then there can be further dialogue and not the parroting of some adopted system of belief which may or may not have been critiqued. You speak of long term as opposed to short term benefits but dont clarify what you mean by that. I mean do you drive a car? Think of the long term goals as opposed to short term benefits of driving a car.
I dont 'turn off' to anything. My concern for the environment which includes the human animal is based on a broader and more complex political criteria than mere sentimentality towards slaughtered cows. In short its more measured. You are in an intellectual discussion so go back and answer the questions and stop pretending you know what compassion is and that you can identify the level of compassion in others based on what they eat!
Its funny! The buddha says! I am laughing because no actual buddhist living as a buddhist in a buddhist country would ever refer to something 'The buddha said...' Nevermind Hesse who's work is fiction based on myth. Here the buddha is a god and god doesnt 'say' anything. Haha! What records do you have of what the buddha had to say? The man who not only didn't want an image of himself reflected (which happened anyway) but also didn't write anything at all. This reminds me of the same blind acceptance of christians who harp on about the life of jesus which we know almost nothing about. Buddha said indeed!
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I agree with you Squal. If someone carries affection towards an animal it would be difficult to eat it if it is a pet but Samcdkey also has a point that there are many rural people who raise chickens and pigs, live very closely with the animals, care for the animals and slaughter them without a pinch of emotional pain. That is becasue these animals are not pets. In Asia a 'pet' is a luxury. I have noticed in Cambodia dogs are kept as pets but they ward off intruders, protect, kill rats, eat the remains of food. Cats on the other hand have very little value here, usually they are much smaller than the rats who often fight them back and kill them. Because cats cannot be of service in some practical way they are not deemed worthy as a 'pet'. Its usually the expats who save cats and kittens and pay the $30 to take them to the vet and have them cared for; no small amount of money for a Khmer who's average wage (when doing fairly well) may be something like $50 per month.
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
I didn't say that - I said they stand to cultivate the quality of compassion more effectively
Lucysnow said:
I was suggesting that virtues are dependant on how one lives one's life - but I think you are taking some wild detour here- I didn't set out to assinate your character, which seems to be the mood of your writing - better to stick to the defense and examination of ideas - nothing is more pathetic than a battle of wills over the internet
Lucysnow said:
In japan in the 1900's there was a derogatory phrase that translates as "a buddhist who smells like a raw fish" - in other words a crooked person.
Lucysnow said:
I was just pointing out the flaws in the general principles you were applying to say that meat eating was ok - you were saying that it supports the local economy - sure it may not be as socially destructive as the drug trade but it illustrates that economic development doesn't illustrate anything intrinsically virtuous
Lucysnow said:
You may not but many meat eaters do - vets that do pracs at some slaughterhouses are forced to sign contracts that they won't publicise what they see - why don't they have such contracts at herb gardens? If slaughterhouses were made of glass there would probably be more vegetarians
Lucysnow said:
Spiritual life doesn't function on a seperatist vision - in other words if you think that animals operate on completely different and unrelated ways to humans then it becomes easier to view them as combinations of matter as opposed to life force, and with such a view it also becomes easier to have a seperatist visioninhuman society (nation geder etc and other illusory designations)
Lucysnow said:
Buddhists argue about what the buddha said all the time - otherwise why is there a myriad of buddhist faiths?
Lucysnow said:
Well if buddha says nothing what is the difference between someone who is a buddhist and a non-buddhist? If Buddha has nothing to say on anything what's the difference?
Lucysnow said:
Erm ... ever heard of mahayana or theravada or Vajrayana
Lucysnow said:
The problem with not accepting some sort of evidence of what buddha said is that you can literally get away with murder because after all, who knows what the buddha said - even to make the statement "buddha did not want his image reflected" indicates that you do in fact have some recourse to some tings that buddha said something
I agree also that meat is expensive in places where people can't afford it. And also pets are a luxury becuase of the expenses it takes to keep one. I am just saying in the U.S it is very different esp. now when in the present people are being introduced to these new ideas about vegetarianism and animals.
sorry sgal, I can't quite grasp what you are saying about vegetarianism in the states
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
lightgigantic: I said they stand to cultivate the quality of compassion more effectively
So you believe that vegetarians are more compassionate than flesh eaters? Care to offer any proof on that?
LG: I was suggesting that virtues are dependant on how one lives one's life - but I think you are taking some wild detour here- I didn't set out to assinate your character, which seems to be the mood of your writing - better to stick to the defense and examination of ideas - nothing is more pathetic than a battle of wills over the internet
Battle of wit or ideas but will? No I am just looking for an argument that actually proves something and not merely suggest. In other words you have asserted non-violence and vegetarianism go hand in hand and that veggies are more compassionate. Well outside of your personal opinion can you please show me where the proof and hard evidence is to suggest such an assertion and buddha has nothing to do with the issue so please don't bring him up unless we include them all. You have been evading my questions from the beginning.
LG: In japan in the 1900's there was a derogatory phrase that translates as "a buddhist who smells like a raw fish" - in other words a crooked person.
So? And? What does this have to do with your assertion that nonviolence and vegetarianism go hand in hand? Considering Japan is overwhelmed with sushi restaurants and fish is a staple in their diet you must be suggesting that all japanese people are crooked then? Is that it? tick tick tick...Think! The only fact you offer is that you personally don't like eating flesh and desire that others also feel the same way.
LG: I was just pointing out the flaws in the general principles you were applying to say that meat eating was ok - you were saying that it supports the local economy - sure it may not be as socially destructive as the drug trade but it illustrates that economic development doesn't illustrate anything intrinsically virtuous
Flaws? You are suggesting that the international drug trade supports local economies? And I hate to break this to you but it is okay to eat meat, it just isnt in your mind. Many people feel perfectly fine eating prawns, pheasant, chicken, salmon and beef. They go to bed at night without feeling that they have aggressed these creatures. All of nature is eating itself, we just happen to be on top of the food chain. If you believe eating meat is as harmful as selling drugs then the flaw lies in your argument not mine. You still have yet to prove anything outside of your personal opinion.
LG: vets that do pracs at some slaughterhouses are forced to sign contracts that they won't publicise what they see - why don't they have such contracts at herb gardens?
Yes because people like you dont care about the 'feeling' of a coriander being plucked so unkindly from its life giving roots. Its no longer free to grow! The american public would like to believe their cows roam free because that's how it looks in the commercials. It doesn't suprise me that slaughterhouses dont want the reality revealed because the public lives in a bubble, but this is only really true of city dwellers. Rural people are used to having animals around and used to them being slaughtered, some may even do it themselves. I am aware of slaughterhouses and I still continue to eat meat and fish. In the States I pay more for meat and fish that haven't been filled with hormones, and are free range but that doesn't have anything to do with the manner of killing. I am not concerned with the manner in which an animal is slaughtered after its been raised for consumption. I am concerned with where it is from and how it was raised. Ideally death should be quick that's all.
LG:Spiritual life doesn't function on a seperatist vision - in other words if you think that animals operate on completely different and unrelated ways to humans then it becomes easier to view them as combinations of matter as opposed to life force,
A living animal is not a life force but simply alive. And no I don't think they are unrelated to humans since we coexist but that's no reason not to utilize an animal as food. And no I do not think a rat is the same as a cow or a cow the same as a chimp or a chimp the same as a human being. Everything has a value though not the same value.
LG:and with such a view it also becomes easier to have a seperatist visioninhuman society (nation geder etc and other illusory designations)
I hate to say this but nations exist they are not illusions. Passports, borders, citizenship and state exist; the same is true of gender. That too exists. To say everything is an illusion or a dream is the same as saying everything is real because it might as well be if there is nothing outside of the illusion/dream. You may have a non-separatist vision but trust me if you try to enter a country without a passport or a visa border patrol may not agree with your position.
LG: Buddhists argue about what the buddha said all the time - otherwise why is there a myriad of buddhist faiths?
Very good. My point exactly so dont bother bringing him up when discussing the merits or vegetarianism and I won't mention that Martha Luther King ate flesh.
LG: Erm ... ever heard of mahayana or theravada or Vajrayana
Yes all three and in Cambodia and Thailand theravada buddhism is practised. These different versions of buddhism, an offshoot of hinduism, formed way after the death of buddha. The way of travel for religious monks and devotees of buddhism was mostly by foot it took a very long time for buddhism to travel north and form Mahayana buddism. To ascribe anything to what the buddha had to say is just as murky as trying to decide what jesus said and what really occurred in his life.
LG: Well if buddha says nothing what is the difference between someone who is a buddhist and a non-buddhist? If Buddha has nothing to say on anything what's the difference?
LG: The problem with not accepting some sort of evidence of what buddha said is that you can literally get away with murder because after all, who knows what the buddha said - even to make the statement "buddha did not want his image reflected" indicates that you do in fact have some recourse to some tings that buddha said something
No. What I know is that someone had information that they got from someone who had information etc etc. and if one went far enough one might discover it was all bollocks, like when people play telephone. Everything ascribed to him was said after him. buddha was a man long time dead. Do you get that? A man just like jesus was a man, they died like men. What is left of them in religion is far from what they were. There is too little information and much interpretation.
But as I said earlier, if you bring up the buddha as a source and then ascribe to vegetarianism a religious slant I will be forced to mention jesus because he ate meat and taught peace. I would also have to bring up those like the inuit who cannot subsist on vegetables. I mean are you going to say that the life of a seal is more worthy than the lives of inuit people? Equal? Or are you going to say that the Inuits are an exception? Or are you going to say that the Inuits are a bunch of 'crooked' fishy smelly violent bastards? I have asked you these questions among others before without answer.
So you believe that vegetarians are more compassionate than flesh eaters? Care to offer any proof on that?
LG: I was suggesting that virtues are dependant on how one lives one's life - but I think you are taking some wild detour here- I didn't set out to assinate your character, which seems to be the mood of your writing - better to stick to the defense and examination of ideas - nothing is more pathetic than a battle of wills over the internet
Battle of wit or ideas but will? No I am just looking for an argument that actually proves something and not merely suggest. In other words you have asserted non-violence and vegetarianism go hand in hand and that veggies are more compassionate. Well outside of your personal opinion can you please show me where the proof and hard evidence is to suggest such an assertion and buddha has nothing to do with the issue so please don't bring him up unless we include them all. You have been evading my questions from the beginning.
LG: In japan in the 1900's there was a derogatory phrase that translates as "a buddhist who smells like a raw fish" - in other words a crooked person.
So? And? What does this have to do with your assertion that nonviolence and vegetarianism go hand in hand? Considering Japan is overwhelmed with sushi restaurants and fish is a staple in their diet you must be suggesting that all japanese people are crooked then? Is that it? tick tick tick...Think! The only fact you offer is that you personally don't like eating flesh and desire that others also feel the same way.
LG: I was just pointing out the flaws in the general principles you were applying to say that meat eating was ok - you were saying that it supports the local economy - sure it may not be as socially destructive as the drug trade but it illustrates that economic development doesn't illustrate anything intrinsically virtuous
Flaws? You are suggesting that the international drug trade supports local economies? And I hate to break this to you but it is okay to eat meat, it just isnt in your mind. Many people feel perfectly fine eating prawns, pheasant, chicken, salmon and beef. They go to bed at night without feeling that they have aggressed these creatures. All of nature is eating itself, we just happen to be on top of the food chain. If you believe eating meat is as harmful as selling drugs then the flaw lies in your argument not mine. You still have yet to prove anything outside of your personal opinion.
LG: vets that do pracs at some slaughterhouses are forced to sign contracts that they won't publicise what they see - why don't they have such contracts at herb gardens?
Yes because people like you dont care about the 'feeling' of a coriander being plucked so unkindly from its life giving roots. Its no longer free to grow! The american public would like to believe their cows roam free because that's how it looks in the commercials. It doesn't suprise me that slaughterhouses dont want the reality revealed because the public lives in a bubble, but this is only really true of city dwellers. Rural people are used to having animals around and used to them being slaughtered, some may even do it themselves. I am aware of slaughterhouses and I still continue to eat meat and fish. In the States I pay more for meat and fish that haven't been filled with hormones, and are free range but that doesn't have anything to do with the manner of killing. I am not concerned with the manner in which an animal is slaughtered after its been raised for consumption. I am concerned with where it is from and how it was raised. Ideally death should be quick that's all.
LG:Spiritual life doesn't function on a seperatist vision - in other words if you think that animals operate on completely different and unrelated ways to humans then it becomes easier to view them as combinations of matter as opposed to life force,
A living animal is not a life force but simply alive. And no I don't think they are unrelated to humans since we coexist but that's no reason not to utilize an animal as food. And no I do not think a rat is the same as a cow or a cow the same as a chimp or a chimp the same as a human being. Everything has a value though not the same value.
LG:and with such a view it also becomes easier to have a seperatist visioninhuman society (nation geder etc and other illusory designations)
I hate to say this but nations exist they are not illusions. Passports, borders, citizenship and state exist; the same is true of gender. That too exists. To say everything is an illusion or a dream is the same as saying everything is real because it might as well be if there is nothing outside of the illusion/dream. You may have a non-separatist vision but trust me if you try to enter a country without a passport or a visa border patrol may not agree with your position.
LG: Buddhists argue about what the buddha said all the time - otherwise why is there a myriad of buddhist faiths?
Very good. My point exactly so dont bother bringing him up when discussing the merits or vegetarianism and I won't mention that Martha Luther King ate flesh.
LG: Erm ... ever heard of mahayana or theravada or Vajrayana
Yes all three and in Cambodia and Thailand theravada buddhism is practised. These different versions of buddhism, an offshoot of hinduism, formed way after the death of buddha. The way of travel for religious monks and devotees of buddhism was mostly by foot it took a very long time for buddhism to travel north and form Mahayana buddism. To ascribe anything to what the buddha had to say is just as murky as trying to decide what jesus said and what really occurred in his life.
LG: Well if buddha says nothing what is the difference between someone who is a buddhist and a non-buddhist? If Buddha has nothing to say on anything what's the difference?
LG: The problem with not accepting some sort of evidence of what buddha said is that you can literally get away with murder because after all, who knows what the buddha said - even to make the statement "buddha did not want his image reflected" indicates that you do in fact have some recourse to some tings that buddha said something
No. What I know is that someone had information that they got from someone who had information etc etc. and if one went far enough one might discover it was all bollocks, like when people play telephone. Everything ascribed to him was said after him. buddha was a man long time dead. Do you get that? A man just like jesus was a man, they died like men. What is left of them in religion is far from what they were. There is too little information and much interpretation.
But as I said earlier, if you bring up the buddha as a source and then ascribe to vegetarianism a religious slant I will be forced to mention jesus because he ate meat and taught peace. I would also have to bring up those like the inuit who cannot subsist on vegetables. I mean are you going to say that the life of a seal is more worthy than the lives of inuit people? Equal? Or are you going to say that the Inuits are an exception? Or are you going to say that the Inuits are a bunch of 'crooked' fishy smelly violent bastards? I have asked you these questions among others before without answer.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Sgal: I am just saying in the U.S it is very different esp. now when in the present people are being introduced to these new ideas about vegetarianism and animals.
Yes I agree. When I am in NY there are so many health stores and organic makets, so much food choice that one can very easily avoid meat. Morningstar makes substitute bacon, hamburgers, chicken the whole bit but its all derived from tofu and vegetable fillers.
Yes I agree. When I am in NY there are so many health stores and organic makets, so much food choice that one can very easily avoid meat. Morningstar makes substitute bacon, hamburgers, chicken the whole bit but its all derived from tofu and vegetable fillers.
LG, what's there to grasp, how can you not see that there many different diets being introduced and vegetarianism is a huge part of it, partly because of the obesity problem in the U.S and some people just want to live healthier so they are turing to it.
Lucysnow said:
I believe that a vegetarian has an increased opportunity to cultivate compassion - which doesn't make them relatively higher or lower - just that they have an increased opportunity to develop compassion as a stronger quality
Lucysnow said:
It was a response to your claim that buddhism has no qualms about eating flesh - there was even an era (I read this in a book by a vegetarian buddhist - details evade me ....) where a japanese emporer prohibited the eating of even fish during his rule (exact date escapes me - something like 1000 years ago) on the strength of buddhism - similar trends were there in Korea - but of course tradition changes, particularly with industrial development etc
Lucysnow said:
Well they don't give it away for free do they ...
Lucysnow said:
People feel fine doing so many atrocious things - usually due to bad habits
Lucysnow said:
Your original comment was along the lines that meat is good for the economy therefore it is good - I was countering that with the example of the illicit drug trade
Lucysnow said:
Well why don't we care about coriander? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread? Are you trying to say that if a person is cutting coriander or cutting the throat of a cow they are more or less the same phenomena and don't warrant the batting of an eyelid? Is this a normal exchange
"Hey what's old joe doing?"
"Oh he's in the backyard pulling out a few potatoes or cutting off the head of a cow or something ..."
Lucysnow said:
There is also evidence that meat is not an ideal food substance for our body type - from the jaw to the anus meat spells trouble. there is also evidence that the death is not "ideal" - I mean even if you could a guarentee an "ideal" death would you be agreeable to having it performed on you? (after all its "ideal")
Also if there is something about the means of acquiring your food which you find intrinsically repungant, like for instance if you are more inclined to the option of pulling a vegetable from your garden as opposed to pulling a goat towards a butchers knife, why maintain the double standard?
Lucysnow said:
Then why isn't a microphone stand alive? What is the difference between a microphone stand and an animal if it is not life force?
Lucysnow said:
Coexist? Thats a very diplomatic term to describe how we treat animals - I mean you wouldn't really use the word co-exist to describe what goes down in factory farms or veal production
Lucysnow said:
The point is that if you accept gender, nation, age etc as the final last word of your existence - in otherwords that a chinese is essentially and irrevocably different from an american and that there is no grounds for a common exchange, such as compassion, then it is illusion - the same phenomena happens during war, when notions of nation soar - it is deemed ok to do unspeakable acts to another nation because they are deemed seperate and not human (hitler did the same with the jews) - my point is that we do the same with animals just so we can have no qualms about slitting their throats
Lucysnow said:
Who cares what Martha ate - we are talking about Lord Buddha
Lucysnow said:
I don't know whether to pursue buddhism - i mean I could take that line of inquiry but its not worth it unless you ascribe any merit to Buddha - I am not sure by your comments whether you are declaring that buddhism has no merit and what ever anyone does in the name of buddhism is meaningless and irrelevant
Lucysnow said:
ditto here
Lucysnow said:
I mentioned earlier that it is a case of principles vs options - if you have no options you have an excuse to break the principles (like the inuits) - if you have the options then it is a question why you are breaking the principle (unless of course you don't value the principle) - the principle in discussion is of course compassion
Satisfied? Did I speak harshly enough? lol
Sgal said:
Good on them
Can't we understand this issue by factors; Need & Supply of food types for survival and reproduction/progress, IRON vs Magnesium contents, Effects on pH, Time for Metabolism, for need or for greed/luxuary etc. As far as killing/sin is concerned, both plants and animals are beings not things and individual killings can be more in plants--although I am pure veg. So just check effects on our and on universal health and survivals.
So just check effects on our and on universal health and survivals.wsionynw said:
Actually I try my hardest not to bother god
- I guess a good indication is how much you are bothering other living entities
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Hello LG. Don't forget this is how you began your thread
'Apparently kosher meat is supposed to be humane
Frankly I am amazed that people who vouch for the ethics of non violence and peace can remain neutral when it comes to their choice of diet.
Do you think a person who eats non-vegetarian foods is implicated in what goes down in the name of "humane" animal slaughter. Is "humane animal slaughter" a misnomer?'
U are not observing health, you are not observing the worldwide distribution of food, you simply state that its bewildering for you to conceive of how anyone would want to eat meat and then hinge your 'feelings' on what you believe to be 'humane'. U assume or imply that the custom of kashrut is based on some nonexistent jewish non-violent stance and that is simply not true. kashrut (religous dietary laws) also designates the division between meat and dairy but that isn't because they think its more or less humane. I find this disturbing...just as disturbing as your quote on the japanese being somehow 'crooked' because they eat fish. Mind if I share your quote with a japanese friend of mine? He's back in japan now and I am very curious as to what he thinks. Mind sharing your source for the quote?
LG:"I believe that a vegetarian has an increased opportunity to cultivate compassion - which doesn't make them relatively higher or lower - just that they have an increased opportunity to develop compassion as a stronger quality"
Good. At least you admit its a belief and not knowledge. There is no proof that being a vegetarian increases ones opportunity to cultivate compassion, there is no proof that vegetarians treat other human beings or even themselves necessarily any 'better' from leading a vegetarian lifestyle. It doesn't even mean you will be lean. There are quite a few porky veggies running around because their protien to carb ratio is so out of balance.
LG: It was a response to your claim that buddhism has no qualms about eating flesh -
there was even an era (I read this in a book by a vegetarian buddhist - details evade me ....) where a japanese emporer prohibited the eating of even fish during his rule (exact date escapes me - something like 1000 years ago) on the strength of buddhism - similar trends were there in Korea - but of course tradition changes, particularly with industrial development etc
Buddhist countries and society OBVIOUSLY have no qualms eathing flesh; you just have to visit, japan, korea, thailand, Cambodia, lao or vietnam (both communist countries still practicing buddhism). Citing something you read without having any details (name of book, name of era, name of emporer, etc) doesn't count as evidence of anything. Fish has been a food staple in Japan for as long as they've discovered fish! Sorry but it didn't take the industrial revolution to introduce fish and meat to the diet (you need a better grasp of history). I get the impression you idealize the East and Buddhism. What never seen a cambodian monk smoking a cigarrette while dolled up in orange, shaved head and carrying a yellow umbrella? The world isnt an ashram and there is no 'magic' way, you are not awake, you dream.
LG: Well they don't give it away for free do they ...
That statement concerning drug dealing and selling meat in third world countries may work for some of the mindless here but not with me. You basically have said that buying meat from a local is the same as buying drugs from a local. Now this union of meat and drugs may somehow coalesce in your murky mind but it doesn't in mine. It is a lazy attempt at marginalizing meat by placing it in negative association. Try harder if you want a real discussion concerning meat because the local who has borrowed money to buy cows so he can ek out a living may not be very educated, but he does see the difference between food and drug addiction. I bet that some quality beef at Lucky supermarket here on Sihanouk is MORE expensive than heroin on the streets. Drugs are not given away for free but neither is health care. And you have the audacity to quack on about compassion!!
LG: People feel fine doing so many atrocious things - usually due to bad habits
A bad habit in your mind has no impression on reality.
LG: Your original comment was along the lines that meat is good for the economy therefore it is good - I was countering that with the example of the illicit drug trade
Give me an example of how the illicit drug trade is good for local economies. Show me how the drug trade and the meat trade are directly linked. I want something tangible.
LG: Well why don't we care about coriander? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread?
Yes.
LG: Are you trying to say that if a person is cutting coriander or cutting the throat of a cow they are more or less the same phenomena and don't warrant the batting of an eyelid?
From your sympathetic point of view it would seem so wouldn't it? I mean you said a while back your concern was for all life large or small. Well we don't get any smaller than the coriander do we? If it were up to you all of mankind would sit in the lotus position and commit mass suicide starving ourselves to death like the buddha did. Self-negation is such a bore.
LG: Is this a normal exchange "Hey what's old joe doing?" "Oh he's in the backyard pulling out a few potatoes or cutting off the head of a cow or something ..."
Yes it is. Especially if he's planning on serving stewed beef and potatoes with a hint of aromatic coriander.
LG: There is also evidence that meat is not an ideal food substance for our body type - from the jaw to the anus meat spells trouble.
Oh my god something tangible!! Okay then show me the evidence, hopefully its impartial and not something written from a biased veggie source (maybe the British Medical Journal has some info). They have shown that people who have a mediterranean diet live longer and healthier lives (there is meat in mediterranean diets).
LG: there is also evidence that the death is not "ideal" - I mean even if you could a guarentee an "ideal" death would you be agreeable to having it performed on you? (after all its "ideal")
Huh? What? Elaborate please you have dived back into very murky waters indeed. What exactly are you referring to and where is the evidence? What are you responding to?
LG:Also if there is something about the means of acquiring your food which you find intrinsically repungant, like for instance if you are more inclined to the option of pulling a vegetable from your garden as opposed to pulling a goat towards a butchers knife, why maintain the double standard?
What double standard? When it becomes cold outside what will one eat? The veggies dont grow in winter. Maybe the cow once dried out would last much longer? I wouldn't be the one to die in winter over some silly notion. There is no double standard, as soon as I become sick and malnutritioned I would slit its throat. Its funny what hunger can overcome.
LG: Then why isn't a microphone stand alive? What is the difference between a microphone stand and an animal if it is not life force?
Here we go again! You speak of an animal as BEING a 'life force' and I say an animal isn't a life force but simply 'alive' and out of nowhere comes a microphone? Now you are comparing an electronic device to living animals? I'm really confused can we eat microphones? U know someone around here used to call me a red herring but you really take the cake...and in your own thread even!
LG: Coexist? Thats a very diplomatic term to describe how we treat animals - I mean you wouldn't really use the word co-exist to describe what goes down in factory farms or veal production
For the most part we do 'coexist' simply because we don't live close to any animals outside our house-pets which is true for much of the urban West. 'We' don't treat animals in any way (yes that means you and I). The purpose of the factory is to turn cow into beef fillet, tornado or hamburger. Now if you don't like what they do because you feel sorry for the cow, either come up with a better way of killing the animal or don't eat the beef. Now if you choose the latter is no reason for anyone else to join you. Your sentiments are yours alone or those who have an affinity with those sentiments, that doesn't make it 'de facto' true.
LG: The point is that if you accept gender, nation, age etc as the final last word of your existence
Now why would i do that? My age, nation and age are facts. I cannot go back to being 12 nor pretend I am male or beg the Swiss to recognize my inalienable right to their land. Accepting this doesn't make it the 'last word' of my existance. You make a lot of assumptions!
LG: - in otherwords that a chinese is essentially and irrevocably different from an american and that there is no grounds for a common exchange, such as compassion, then it is illusion
What? No one said or implied a chinese man and an american man are not both men. The fact that they are both men doesn't mean there are any common grounds (doesn't mean there are not either). Just because two people are from the west doesn't mean they necessarily share common ground. You have yet to prove to me you know anything at all about compassion nor that you are compassionate, nevermind other peoples capacity for compassion. You throw the word around like an old sock.
LG: - the same phenomena happens during war, when notions of nation soar - it is deemed ok to do unspeakable acts to another nation because they are deemed seperate and not human (hitler did the same with the jews)
Actually there is an entire international community that says it isn't ok but here's the rub...Jews are human and cows are not! And no I will preemptively answer: NO i DO NOT EQUATE THE VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE TO ONE OF A COW and none of your buddhist badgering will change that for me.
LG: Who cares what Martha ate - we are talking about Lord Buddha
No we we were not talking about Buddha. YOu decided Buddha was lord and as far as I am concerned if you bring up the buddha I might as well bring up MLK. The thread says absolutley nothing about Buddha its titled: Vegetarian/Nonviolence/Kosher ethics
You decided to bring up buddha and since MLK was also a meat eating nonviolent pacifist I felt compelled to bring him up too. Now if you consider buddha your lord that is all good and well but the buddha is shakey ground in which to place your position because you assume the majority have some sort of sympathy towards budda and buddhism. If you want to discuss the topic use something tangible. You are a student of buddhas students over thousands of years...in other words I hardly think you're an expert.
LG: I don't know whether to pursue buddhism - i mean I could take that line of inquiry but its not worth it unless you ascribe any merit to Buddha - I am not sure by your comments whether you are declaring that buddhism has no merit and what ever anyone does in the name of buddhism is meaningless and irrelevant
Buddhism has merit if one is a buddhist. Being a buddhist is not a secular decision. We are in a secular discussion especially now that its no longer kosher (joking just joking). The meat industry and buddhism dont necessarily sit on the same plate. Either you want to convert people or you want to discuss vegetarianism as a lifestyle option. Either way it is still no proof that there is anything wrong with eating meat outside the fact you cannot bear to see the footage of suffering cows. With all that goes on in the world I am surprised the topic even shows on your radar.
'Apparently kosher meat is supposed to be humane
Frankly I am amazed that people who vouch for the ethics of non violence and peace can remain neutral when it comes to their choice of diet.
Do you think a person who eats non-vegetarian foods is implicated in what goes down in the name of "humane" animal slaughter. Is "humane animal slaughter" a misnomer?'
U are not observing health, you are not observing the worldwide distribution of food, you simply state that its bewildering for you to conceive of how anyone would want to eat meat and then hinge your 'feelings' on what you believe to be 'humane'. U assume or imply that the custom of kashrut is based on some nonexistent jewish non-violent stance and that is simply not true. kashrut (religous dietary laws) also designates the division between meat and dairy but that isn't because they think its more or less humane. I find this disturbing...just as disturbing as your quote on the japanese being somehow 'crooked' because they eat fish. Mind if I share your quote with a japanese friend of mine? He's back in japan now and I am very curious as to what he thinks. Mind sharing your source for the quote?
LG:"I believe that a vegetarian has an increased opportunity to cultivate compassion - which doesn't make them relatively higher or lower - just that they have an increased opportunity to develop compassion as a stronger quality"
Good. At least you admit its a belief and not knowledge. There is no proof that being a vegetarian increases ones opportunity to cultivate compassion, there is no proof that vegetarians treat other human beings or even themselves necessarily any 'better' from leading a vegetarian lifestyle. It doesn't even mean you will be lean. There are quite a few porky veggies running around because their protien to carb ratio is so out of balance.
LG: It was a response to your claim that buddhism has no qualms about eating flesh -
there was even an era (I read this in a book by a vegetarian buddhist - details evade me ....) where a japanese emporer prohibited the eating of even fish during his rule (exact date escapes me - something like 1000 years ago) on the strength of buddhism - similar trends were there in Korea - but of course tradition changes, particularly with industrial development etc
Buddhist countries and society OBVIOUSLY have no qualms eathing flesh; you just have to visit, japan, korea, thailand, Cambodia, lao or vietnam (both communist countries still practicing buddhism). Citing something you read without having any details (name of book, name of era, name of emporer, etc) doesn't count as evidence of anything. Fish has been a food staple in Japan for as long as they've discovered fish! Sorry but it didn't take the industrial revolution to introduce fish and meat to the diet (you need a better grasp of history). I get the impression you idealize the East and Buddhism. What never seen a cambodian monk smoking a cigarrette while dolled up in orange, shaved head and carrying a yellow umbrella? The world isnt an ashram and there is no 'magic' way, you are not awake, you dream.
LG: Well they don't give it away for free do they ...
That statement concerning drug dealing and selling meat in third world countries may work for some of the mindless here but not with me. You basically have said that buying meat from a local is the same as buying drugs from a local. Now this union of meat and drugs may somehow coalesce in your murky mind but it doesn't in mine. It is a lazy attempt at marginalizing meat by placing it in negative association. Try harder if you want a real discussion concerning meat because the local who has borrowed money to buy cows so he can ek out a living may not be very educated, but he does see the difference between food and drug addiction. I bet that some quality beef at Lucky supermarket here on Sihanouk is MORE expensive than heroin on the streets. Drugs are not given away for free but neither is health care. And you have the audacity to quack on about compassion!!
LG: People feel fine doing so many atrocious things - usually due to bad habits
A bad habit in your mind has no impression on reality.
LG: Your original comment was along the lines that meat is good for the economy therefore it is good - I was countering that with the example of the illicit drug trade
Give me an example of how the illicit drug trade is good for local economies. Show me how the drug trade and the meat trade are directly linked. I want something tangible.
LG: Well why don't we care about coriander? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread?
Yes.
LG: Are you trying to say that if a person is cutting coriander or cutting the throat of a cow they are more or less the same phenomena and don't warrant the batting of an eyelid?
From your sympathetic point of view it would seem so wouldn't it? I mean you said a while back your concern was for all life large or small. Well we don't get any smaller than the coriander do we? If it were up to you all of mankind would sit in the lotus position and commit mass suicide starving ourselves to death like the buddha did. Self-negation is such a bore.
LG: Is this a normal exchange "Hey what's old joe doing?" "Oh he's in the backyard pulling out a few potatoes or cutting off the head of a cow or something ..."
Yes it is. Especially if he's planning on serving stewed beef and potatoes with a hint of aromatic coriander.
LG: There is also evidence that meat is not an ideal food substance for our body type - from the jaw to the anus meat spells trouble.
Oh my god something tangible!! Okay then show me the evidence, hopefully its impartial and not something written from a biased veggie source (maybe the British Medical Journal has some info). They have shown that people who have a mediterranean diet live longer and healthier lives (there is meat in mediterranean diets).
LG: there is also evidence that the death is not "ideal" - I mean even if you could a guarentee an "ideal" death would you be agreeable to having it performed on you? (after all its "ideal")
Huh? What? Elaborate please you have dived back into very murky waters indeed. What exactly are you referring to and where is the evidence? What are you responding to?
LG:Also if there is something about the means of acquiring your food which you find intrinsically repungant, like for instance if you are more inclined to the option of pulling a vegetable from your garden as opposed to pulling a goat towards a butchers knife, why maintain the double standard?
What double standard? When it becomes cold outside what will one eat? The veggies dont grow in winter. Maybe the cow once dried out would last much longer? I wouldn't be the one to die in winter over some silly notion. There is no double standard, as soon as I become sick and malnutritioned I would slit its throat. Its funny what hunger can overcome.
LG: Then why isn't a microphone stand alive? What is the difference between a microphone stand and an animal if it is not life force?
Here we go again! You speak of an animal as BEING a 'life force' and I say an animal isn't a life force but simply 'alive' and out of nowhere comes a microphone? Now you are comparing an electronic device to living animals? I'm really confused can we eat microphones? U know someone around here used to call me a red herring but you really take the cake...and in your own thread even!
LG: Coexist? Thats a very diplomatic term to describe how we treat animals - I mean you wouldn't really use the word co-exist to describe what goes down in factory farms or veal production
For the most part we do 'coexist' simply because we don't live close to any animals outside our house-pets which is true for much of the urban West. 'We' don't treat animals in any way (yes that means you and I). The purpose of the factory is to turn cow into beef fillet, tornado or hamburger. Now if you don't like what they do because you feel sorry for the cow, either come up with a better way of killing the animal or don't eat the beef. Now if you choose the latter is no reason for anyone else to join you. Your sentiments are yours alone or those who have an affinity with those sentiments, that doesn't make it 'de facto' true.
LG: The point is that if you accept gender, nation, age etc as the final last word of your existence
Now why would i do that? My age, nation and age are facts. I cannot go back to being 12 nor pretend I am male or beg the Swiss to recognize my inalienable right to their land. Accepting this doesn't make it the 'last word' of my existance. You make a lot of assumptions!
LG: - in otherwords that a chinese is essentially and irrevocably different from an american and that there is no grounds for a common exchange, such as compassion, then it is illusion
What? No one said or implied a chinese man and an american man are not both men. The fact that they are both men doesn't mean there are any common grounds (doesn't mean there are not either). Just because two people are from the west doesn't mean they necessarily share common ground. You have yet to prove to me you know anything at all about compassion nor that you are compassionate, nevermind other peoples capacity for compassion. You throw the word around like an old sock.
LG: - the same phenomena happens during war, when notions of nation soar - it is deemed ok to do unspeakable acts to another nation because they are deemed seperate and not human (hitler did the same with the jews)
Actually there is an entire international community that says it isn't ok but here's the rub...Jews are human and cows are not! And no I will preemptively answer: NO i DO NOT EQUATE THE VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE TO ONE OF A COW and none of your buddhist badgering will change that for me.
LG: Who cares what Martha ate - we are talking about Lord Buddha
No we we were not talking about Buddha. YOu decided Buddha was lord and as far as I am concerned if you bring up the buddha I might as well bring up MLK. The thread says absolutley nothing about Buddha its titled: Vegetarian/Nonviolence/Kosher ethics
You decided to bring up buddha and since MLK was also a meat eating nonviolent pacifist I felt compelled to bring him up too. Now if you consider buddha your lord that is all good and well but the buddha is shakey ground in which to place your position because you assume the majority have some sort of sympathy towards budda and buddhism. If you want to discuss the topic use something tangible. You are a student of buddhas students over thousands of years...in other words I hardly think you're an expert.
LG: I don't know whether to pursue buddhism - i mean I could take that line of inquiry but its not worth it unless you ascribe any merit to Buddha - I am not sure by your comments whether you are declaring that buddhism has no merit and what ever anyone does in the name of buddhism is meaningless and irrelevant
Buddhism has merit if one is a buddhist. Being a buddhist is not a secular decision. We are in a secular discussion especially now that its no longer kosher (joking just joking). The meat industry and buddhism dont necessarily sit on the same plate. Either you want to convert people or you want to discuss vegetarianism as a lifestyle option. Either way it is still no proof that there is anything wrong with eating meat outside the fact you cannot bear to see the footage of suffering cows. With all that goes on in the world I am surprised the topic even shows on your radar.
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
Howdy
Lucysnow said:
I am not aware how you would "prove" compassion except by exhibiting the courage to put a principle into practice (courage is the quality that all other virtues depend upon) - in other words if one genuinely has compassion on others they will be cautiou s not to inflict unnecessary suffering on others - a very primary method to exhibit this quality is to discriminate between eatables and non eatables - true a person can be a vegetarian and wicked or a meat eater and kind - but regardless of where one stands in regard to compassion, a vegetarian diet could be a good start - Don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that vegetariansim constitutes perfect compassion - I do however suggest that meat eating exhibits a flaw of character in a person who has ample dietary options and at the same time advocates compassion.
Lucysnow said:
In one sense you are right - it doesn't matter what you used to be, its what you are now that matters and determines things - I guess there is no point clinging to the antiquity of buddhism.
Lucysnow said:
... and what shapes action in the real world if not the mind?
Lucysnow said:
Well someone's making money
Lucysnow said:
No - just don't eat animals - its quite simple really even a child can draw a connection between a cut on their finger and an animal getting its throat slit
Lucysnow said:
If you respond the same way to a woman keening into the body of her mutilated child I would say it would not be a contrary behaviour for such a person - if however you cannot tolerate the screams of a distraught and terrified human why can you tolerate an animal in a similar state of fear?
Lucysnow said:
Don't worry you don't need a PHD to work out meat is not suitable for our body.....
Call me a fool but the presence of sweat pores (ever wondered why a dog pants?), the absence of claws and canine teeth, the presence of a mandible jaw that can grind things (as opposed to simply hinging up and down), weaker stomach acid (not suitable for digesting the complex proteins of meat), and a longer intestine (explains why even humans who eat meat don't eat carrion like every other carnivorous creature on the planet - makes us particularly susceptable to bacteria than carrion eaters) seems to spell it out pretty clearly to me.
Lucysnow said:
You brought it up ....
"Ideally death should be quick that's all."
Lucysnow said:
Well if you actually in danger of dying of malnutrition in winter that is one thing - and if you are just sticking to a particular isle of a supermarket that is another
Lucysnow said:
The point is that you have a very un-scientific approach to "life force" - on what authority do you distinguish inanimate matter, an "alive" thing, and life force? My point is that there is only two classifications - life force and inanimate matter, unless you adopt a ridiculous method of classification based on wearing underpants or something
Lucysnow said:
One moment we are starving in winter and the next we have household pets in the west - what social paradigm are we operating out of here?
Lucysnow said:
We merely support the economy of people who do "treat" them by our whimsical choice of diet
Lucysnow said:
There is a third option if you have severe problems with the "purpose" stage of the factories - its called education
Lucysnow said:
Well that's why there is argument for -lol- and actually I do have experience that people are enthused when they understand where there food is coming from and how bad it is for them - you may not be one of those people but there are stacks of pro-vegetarian sites that seem to be making some success - I guess that just makes you a member of the opposing party
Lucysnow said:
Vegetarianism is becoming more popular - 30 years ago you would be hard pressed to even find a vegetarian preperation at a restaurant - despite your antics people seem to be getting educated
Lucysnow said:
Well what is the difference, illusory designations of difference aside
Lucysnow said:
Again you brought up the topic, not me ....
"...and don't forget the buddist monks who set themselves on fire while sitting in the prostate position in protest of the vietnam war. What happened to their principle of non-violence? "
Anyway I could venture on about the connection between buddha and vegetarianism but since you have no respect for either I will drop the buddha thing
In terms of health benefits, meat is not required for optimal health and the health of vegetarians is comparable to that of non-vegetarians with advantages for vegetarians in BMI and certain indicators of heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16441942&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15702597&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15829014&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16441942&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15702597&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15829014&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum