the great vegetarian debate

[Durt_Dawg]

Why do homeboys always gotta go so extreme over views?! Eat meat if ya must, although you should try not to!

[Kim OHara]

... I also see merit in dining on "road kill" since the practice reduces waste, (only if tire tread marks appeal to you) and improves the environmental esthetic. This practice is called scavenging, which makes scavengers such as vultures and condors more morally correct in accordance with our Buddhist precepts than vegans as well.

There's a feral radical conservationist in a series of books by Carl Hiaasen who eats any roadkill that's big enough and fresh enough ... snakes, dogs, 'gators (we're talking Florida here), whatever. Try Skin Tight, Double Whammy, Sick Puppy etc if you like very raw humour with good underlying values - http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Hiaasen/e/B000AQ2LMO.


Kim

[Ben]

Greetings Kim,

... I also see merit in dining on "road kill" since the practice reduces waste, (only if tire tread marks appeal to you) and improves the environmental esthetic. This practice is called scavenging, which makes scavengers such as vultures and condors more morally correct in accordance with our Buddhist precepts than vegans as well.

There's a feral radical conservationist in a series of books by Carl Hiaasen who eats any roadkill that's big enough and fresh enough ... snakes, dogs, 'gators (we're talking Florida here), whatever. Try Skin Tight, Double Whammy, Sick Puppy etc if you like very raw humour with good underlying values - http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Hiaasen/e/B000AQ2LMO.


Kim

Some years ago my wife was working for our social security agency on the outskirts of Melbourne, one of her clients was a mentally ill homeless man who would disappear for months at a time and apparently sustained himself on roadkill. It happens...

[Ben]

I also see merit in dining on "road kill" since the practice reduces waste, (only if tire tread marks appeal to you) and improves the environmental esthetic. This practice is called scavenging, which makes scavengers such as vultures and condors more morally correct in accordance with our Buddhist precepts than vegans as well.

Actually, there is no moral difference between eating road kill or leaving it to become road-side fertilizer. Just as there is no moral difference between a vulture eating carrion and a human eating carrion mediated by a supermarket.
kind regards,

Ben

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi, Kim. I get it. The idea is to cause no harm, but the reality is that something, animal or plant gets harmed when you eat it unless it is already deceased. One of the ways to avoid that is to go the route of The Fruit and Nut-atarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Such as these eat only what plants produce for specific consumption in the hopes that their seeds will be excreted in locations, which will help them to spread their kind. Therefore, Squirrels, chipmonks, seed eating birds, and humans that copy their dietary behaviors are the only ones, who are actually complying with Buddha's precepts:

1. Do no harm to sentient beings , Variously stated: Cause no harm to living beings
and 2. Take not that, which has not been freely given.

We Vegans hold no higher moral ground than carnivores, otherwise, as we also take life and that which has not been freely given. So, my suggestion would be for us to ease up on lecturing others.

I also see merit in dining on "road kill" since the practice reduces waste, (only if tire tread marks appeal to you) and improves the environmental esthetic. This practice is called scavenging, which makes scavengers such as vultures and condors more morally correct in accordance with our Buddhist precepts than vegans as well.

Plants are not sentient or conscious beings though. No plants have consciousness, thoughts or "feel" pain. Plants "react" to stimuli like all life, but have no nervous system or brains and can't compute feelings or pain or anything of the sort.

Wrong! Suggest you read and study the latest findings regarding Plant Life. Plants meet all the criterea of life, sentience, and there is no convincing evidence that some plant species are not sapient. Mankind, espescially the Abrahemic religiostics have long demonstrated their ignorance in this regard. Jains understood this thousands of years ago, well before Buddhism, and modern plant neuro-biology has cleared up this point quite convincingly siding with the understanding demonstrated by the respect for plants of The Jains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has long been debated by the ignorant, that is no doubt why plants weren't included on Noah's Arc, and why Buddha failed to include them in the 31 Planes of existence, so I will not bother to begin anew in light of such overwhelming ignorance. Suggest you read here if you are truly interested. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and give thanks to plants for the very oxygen that you breathe.

[Eccedustin]

Hi, Kim. I get it. The idea is to cause no harm, but the reality is that something, animal or plant gets harmed when you eat it unless it is already deceased. One of the ways to avoid that is to go the route of The Fruit and Nut-atarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Such as these eat only what plants produce for specific consumption in the hopes that their seeds will be excreted in locations, which will help them to spread their kind. Therefore, Squirrels, chipmonks, seed eating birds, and humans that copy their dietary behaviors are the only ones, who are actually complying with Buddha's precepts:

1. Do no harm to sentient beings , Variously stated: Cause no harm to living beings
and 2. Take not that, which has not been freely given.

We Vegans hold no higher moral ground than carnivores, otherwise, as we also take life and that which has not been freely given. So, my suggestion would be for us to ease up on lecturing others.

I also see merit in dining on "road kill" since the practice reduces waste, (only if tire tread marks appeal to you) and improves the environmental esthetic. This practice is called scavenging, which makes scavengers such as vultures and condors more morally correct in accordance with our Buddhist precepts than vegans as well.

Plants are not sentient or conscious beings though. No plants have consciousness, thoughts or "feel" pain. Plants "react" to stimuli like all life, but have no nervous system or brains and can't compute feelings or pain or anything of the sort.

Wrong! Suggest you read and study the latest findings regarding Plant Life. Plants meet all the criterea of life, sentience, and there is no convincing evidence that some plant species are not sapient. Mankind, espescially the Abrahemic religiostics have long demonstrated their ignorance in this regard. Jains understood this thousands of years ago, well before Buddhism, and modern plant neuro-biology has cleared up this point quite convincingly siding with the understanding demonstrated by the respect for plants of The Jains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has long been debated by the ignorant, that is no doubt why plants weren't included on Noah's Arc, and why Buddha failed to include them in the 31 Planes of existence, so I will not bother to begin anew in light of such overwhelming ignorance. Suggest you read here if you are truly interested. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and give thanks to plants for the very oxygen that you breathe.

I never said that plants are not "living". I said that plants are not "sentient". This means that plants have no thoughts, no emotions, can't 'feel' pain like higher organisms can. Plants only react to stimuli, but can't feel it or perceive it consciously.

If you have some credible scientific studies from peer reviewed journals showing that plants have thoughts, emotions, sentience, consciousness....Please Post them here.

[Ron-The-Elder]

[



I never said that plants are not "living". I said that plants are not "sentient". This means that plants have no thoughts, no emotions, can't 'feel' pain like higher organisms can. Plants only react to stimuli, but can't feel it or perceive it consciously.

If you have some credible scientific studies from peer reviewed journals showing that plants have thoughts, emotions, sentience, consciousness....Please Post them here.

When you read the links I have already provided and which are included int the Thread called "plants", your doubts born of ignorance will be addressed, assuming you can understand what is written. I am not currently in the mood to address your ignorance. "You" will have to study the topic as others have already or continue in your your state of massive ignorance regarding plants and their prodigious abilities. I will give you a hint:

Begin with the definition of sentience:

sentience or sentiency (ˈsɛnʃəns) from http://www.dictionary.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

— n
1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

sentiency or sentiency

Then watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stefan ... gence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Eccedustin]

When you read the links I have already provided and which are included int the Thread called "plants", your doubts born of ignorance will be addressed, assuming you can understand what is written. I am not currently in the mood to address your ignorance. "You" will have to study the topic as others have already or continue in your your state of massive ignorance regarding plants and their prodigious abilities. I will give you a hint:

Begin with the definition of sentience:

sentience or sentiency (ˈsɛnʃəns) from http://www.dictionary.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

— n
1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

sentiency or sentiency

So you are using the 2nd definition? "not involving intelligence or mental perception;feeling"?

Plants aren't "conscious". They don't have "thoughts". They don't have mental perceptions or awareness. THe thread or links you've posted support no evidence for the claim that they do.

Then watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stefan ... gence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron-The-Elder]

Good friend, You did not watch this, or you wouldn't be asking the questions that you are asking and insisting in ignorance what you are insisting.
Again, your ignorance is "your ignorance" and it is therefore your responsibility to address it, educate yourself and end it." That is why Buddha in his address and advisory to the Kalamas asked us to personally validate and verfiy every one of our views and"not be attached when there is evidence to the contrary of what we believe or have been taught, or out of laziness hold to what is called "common knowledge". Attachment, including "clinging to views and perspectives causes suffering!" : Very Important to watch and read this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stefan ... gence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then recommend exploring this site: http://www.plantneurobiology.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chownah]

Ron-the-Elder,
I am not convinced that plants are sentient even after reading the links you have provided. Does this mean I am ignorant?
chownah

[Ron-The-Elder]

Ron-the-Elder,
I am not convinced that plants are sentient even after reading the links you have provided. Does this mean I am ignorant?
chownah

We are all ignorant about something. We spend most our lives trying to end our ignorance. Could be that you are just attached to your views. That would make you one of the great mass, who suffer. Suggest studying and practicing Buddhism.

[waimengwan]

Our Digestive tracts is very similar to animals who eat plants, unlike Carnivores who have a very short one so that meat does not decay in the intestinal tract.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This study says a lot about what are the natural foods for us.

having said that consuming meat of ruminant animals, creates the demand for such animals to be bred, this leads to more deforestation hence more global warming and methane gases from ruminant animals like cows contribute 20% of methane gas in the world.

Also would we eat meat if we have to kill it ourselves in this time and age? Yes Theravadan monks eat anything, but these are holy monks who hold so many vows and they have pure conduct and practice detachment, what do we do , we just indulge in our sense mostly. So there is a huge difference i a Buddha eating meat, a monk eating meat and lay person eating meat.

Have any of us been to abbatoirs to witness animals being killed, these are sentient beings too. One day we also can take an animal rebirth too, do we want to go in that manner?

This is a funny but insightful video
Where on earth do people think meat comes from, some mythical meat tree?
http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-ri ... video.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cittasanto]

Our Digestive tracts is very similar to animals who eat plants, unlike Carnivores who have a very short one so that meat does not decay in the intestinal tract.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This study says a lot about what are the natural foods for us.

do you have a link to a peer reviewed article?
here is the actual article used to make the table
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/t ... ating.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and an interesting snippet from there

The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

and an interesting fact I did not know
although does seam quite odd to use that measurement to me as I do not know of any field where this is used for humans?
is there a field where bipeds are measured in this way?
if not it work out as 4.5 times the length for the intestines based on means of 1.76m tall person & 26ft long intestine

[Kim OHara]

The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

and an interesting fact I did not know
although does seam quite odd to use that measurement to me as I do not know of any field where this is used for humans?
is there a field where bipeds are measured in this way?
if not it work out as 4.5 times the length for the intestines based on means of 1.76m tall person & 26ft long intestine

I think the point is that we are not significantly different, anatomically, from quadrupeds* and quadrupeds are normally measured in terms of head+body length (leaving out the tail, if they have one, and the length of the hind legs) so this measurement gives us a better comparison.


Kim

*We are quadrupeds who learned to stand upright, and all sorts of problems, particularly spinal problems, arise from that - but that's another issue altogether.

[Ben]

So there is a huge difference i a Buddha eating meat, a monk eating meat and lay person eating meat.

With respect, you are wrong here. If it were so, there would have been a lay precept against eating meat. The fact is, there is no moral difference if one eats a steak or a carrot. Except for any craving created, the act of eating, whether meat or vegetable, is kammically neutral. When Devadatta insisted the Sangha adopt vegetarianism - the Buddha refused.

Where on earth do people think meat comes from, some mythical meat tree?

You best beware the hambush.
kind regards,

Ben