Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death".
you also said this "To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time)" which BTW isn't happening. saying there is a disassociation and saying there is a separation are two different things.
With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position.
yet this isn't happening here as explained.
With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).
If someone doesn't have the intention they do not have the intention, all is not one. we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.
(edited the quote problem out)