Ron-The-Elder wrote:In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.
Hope this clears thing up!
Okay, if you are using that definition. When I saw the term it sounded like something else, so looked it up to be certain and sure enough, this came up:
zoophilia (ˌzəʊəˈfɪlɪə)
— n
a morbid condition in which a person has a sexual attraction to animals; bestiality
One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.
David N. Snyder wrote:
One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.
Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
Yes. There are those folks that have a sexual interest in animals, also called zoophiles , but the variety of folks that I am referencing are "non-sexual zoophiles":
Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.
Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.
What I was trying to frame with the term was the concept of dietary preference or nutritional need due to biological disposition.
My apologies for any lexical ambiguity.
Last edited by Ron-The-Elder on Sun May 04, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
chownah wrote:
Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
Hi Chownah,
I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...
I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.
Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.
It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:All of us have a need to consume life in order to live. It seems only omnivores truly have a choice as to what they consume given that both forms of nutrients are present from which to choose.
Only human beings have the choice of choosing what to eat based on ethical or moral standards. Or making any choice based on ethical or moral standards (virtue). Animals don't have this luxury. That's one of the many reasons why being an animal isn't as fortunate as being a human being.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
David N. Snyder wrote:
One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.
Personally, I don't think that is a myth. Pet ownership is not considered good with regards to breeding, selling animals, etc. However, ownership of abandoned pets, pets from shelters, etc. nothing at all wrong with that. From my experience as an animal rights activist, most animal rights activists do have pets, ones they adopted from shelters, rescued, etc. As far as the "pet trade business" is concerned, yes they are very much against that! In all my years working as an animal rights activist, I've found that all activists I've ever met, adore animals of all kinds personally. Never met an activist that did not love animals personally. A large majority the people that I know who work for PETA and other animal rights organizations, all have rescued animals as pets. Some even have pet pigs!
Has the pendulum swung too far with regard to "Animal's Rights?"
Should PETA be reigned-in?
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
PETA is pretty tame compared to the ALF and other radical groups. They've been labelled domestic terrorists by some governments. I think we need activist organizations like PETA but I'm not so sure about radical organizations like the ALF.
9 times out of 10 any organization with the words Liberation and/or Front are extremist terrorist organizations. I can remember several years back when the Earth Liberation Front destroyed a bunch of large SUV vehicles and burned a bunch of homes under construction, complaining that the vehicles were gas guzzlers and the housing projects were urban sprawl. So what happened? The developers made their insurance claim and rebuilt everything, got new vehicles and more trees had to be cut down to rebuild the homes. Extremist practices tend to back-fire, do more environmental damage and do more damage to their cause.
chownah wrote:
Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
Hi Chownah,
I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...
I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.
Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.
It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Mkoll wrote:PETA is pretty tame compared to the ALF and other radical groups. They've been labelled domestic terrorists by some governments. I think we need activist organizations like PETA but I'm not so sure about radical organizations like the ALF.
What is interesting is that these days there are people who consider people in PETA, even in ALF, to be too mild mannered, not extreme enough. It's a revival within the animal rights movement called the "abolitionist movement". They criticize any activity that has to do with improving animal lives on farms, etc. They say PETA and ALF are not even animal rights groups, which is dumb! But anyway! Although, animal rights terrorist are pretty tame in comparison to other terrorists as they have never caused physical harm to a person.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Should PETA be reigned-in?
I don't think that's possible unless one starts infringing on the freedom of speech.
chownah wrote:
Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
Hi Chownah,
I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...
I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.
Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.
It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Would you say the same thing about a guard at a Nazi concentration camp witnessing the killing, sometimes its just OK to have a negative reaction to seeing something, no need to get all equanameaous about it......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
chownah wrote:
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Hi Chownah,
I understand what you're trying to say, but I think that you forget the first precept involves not killing. If the person was a serious practitioner of Buddhism, then he/she would've not gone to a market and then ordered a chicken to be killed.
It is moot whether he keeps on observing his reaction every time a chicken was killed... because if the mindfulness was successfully observed, he would've not strayed from the precept in the first place.
This kind of observation would be unsuccessful every time, by definition.