not in the slightest, if something is inextricably interlinked it is difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie from that which it is joined.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.
the great vegetarian debate
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Meat eating
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
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
Re: Meat eating
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"?
Re: Meat eating
Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?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"?
- "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]
Re: Meat eating
Daverupa is that how you read it?daverupa wrote:Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?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"?
What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-
Re: Meat eating
Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.Mr Man wrote:Daverupa is that how you read it?daverupa wrote:Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?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"?
What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-
- "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]
Re: Meat eating
A subtext? How bizarre. No, there is no subtext.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.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Meat eating
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.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"?
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
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
Re: Meat eating
Cittasanto wrote:you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.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"?
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.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Meat eating
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.
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:you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.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"?
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
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
Re: Meat eating
Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumptionCittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
I'm not putting the blame on anybody.you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.
Last edited by Mr Man on Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
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.
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.
- 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;
Of course I am against cannibalism.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Now i understand why peoples have animal behavourAlex123 wrote: This is symbolic cannibalism!
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Meat eating
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:Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumptionCittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
OK, although that is a consequence of not seperating the process to where things happen and linking things too closely.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.
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
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
Re: the great vegetarian debate
I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
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.Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
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
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