the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:56 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote: And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).
Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life".

It seems to me like you are just trying to distort everything that is said.
not in the slightest, if something is inextricably interlinked it is difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie from that which it is joined.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:07 pm

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by daverupa » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:23 pm

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 pm

daverupa wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?
Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by daverupa » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:00 am

Mr Man wrote:
daverupa wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?
Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-
Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:29 am

daverupa wrote:
Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.
A subtext? How bizarre. No, there is no subtext.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:37 pm

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:51 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.


Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:05 pm

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.


Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:46 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption
you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.
I'm not putting the blame on anybody.
Last edited by Mr Man on Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:49 pm

Hanzze wrote:Such things as cannibalism are told to exist even today (there are many stories from Thailand for example), the sacrify of human decay just about 150 years in south east asia as I read in a scholar history book.

Did you know that Christians have Holy Communion (Eucharist) when they eat bread which signifies Jesus's flesh and drink wine which symbolizes Jesus's blood?
This is symbolic cannibalism! And there are about 2.1 Billion Christians...

There is this belief in some tribes that if one eats the heart of brave warrior, one will become brave.
  • In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process,[26] or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.[27] Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.[27] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Reasons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ideal food for building the body, is another body because it has all the right proportions of all amino-acids. But of course this shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.


Of course I am against cannibalism.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DAWN » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:46 am

Alex123 wrote: This is symbolic cannibalism!
Now i understand why peoples have animal behavour :pig:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:31 am

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption
yet this isn't the only source of meat people can have access to.meat from a natural death is quite prized is Cambodia and other places. I have eaten meat that the animal wasn't killed before without travelling.
Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.
I'm not putting the blame on anybody.
OK, although that is a consequence of not seperating the process to where things happen and linking things too closely.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:29 am

I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:05 pm

Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 70 guests