the great vegetarian debate

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:24 pm

Oh man, these crazy anecdotal Annie carnists are at again. I remember this past hint Nemo made about his health problems that I would like to bring up again, since he is trying to contradict himself once again, thinking we are all too stupid to remember:
Nemo wrote:viewtopic.php?f=36&t=13815&start=20#p180354
... I have been a dirty hobo and lived off grid for a few years as well. Eventually you get hungry, have health concerns or want some comforts. It is hard to undergo hardship like that as you age. ...


Yet magically, minstrels of nonsene like him all the time make up anecdotal nonsense about the health benefits of eating meat -- since they know they cannot give sources, as they don't exist. But if you look at their other posts they are admitting they are overweight and unhealthy! What we have is people who are mostly overweight and unhealthy, making up anecdotes that eating meat is healthy! They even cite fat gurus who had leukemia, which is known to be strongly correlated to meat consumption, and now after leukemia he is likely too sick to even be overweight. Yet of course they try to present it as if he just "lost weight" on his own, instead of what is well known, that people who are too sick, like ex-cancer victims, often are too unhealthy to even be overweight. Amazing what addiction does to people.

Since we are at anecdotes again, my grandmother actually whines all the time she cannot drink water! She insists she has to cut it with some flavoring or some carbonated beverage, or she cannot swallow. My cousin as a youth, used to throw fits when he came to our house and we only had tap water to drink and no juice or soda. Is there a real widespread problem of people not being able to drink water? Of course not, but when you listen to many, whiny addicted first world privileged people, drinking plain water is a huge chore.

Anyway for serious people, this is the effect of a higher than normal meat diet on the type of "Nordic ancestors", which Nemo claims in his fantasies are adapted to eating meat:
Pagona Lagiou, et. al. wrote:BMJ: Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study
...

Results: A one tenth decrease in carbohydrate intake or increase in protein intake or a 2 unit increase in the low carbohydrate-high protein score were all statistically significantly associated with increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease overall (n=1270)—incidence rate ratio estimates 1.04 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.08), 1.04 (1.02 to 1.06), and 1.05 (1.02 to 1.08). No heterogeneity existed in the association of any of these scores with the five studied cardiovascular outcomes: ischaemic heart disease (n=703), ischaemic stroke (n=294), haemorrhagic stroke (n=70), subarachnoid haemorrhage (n=121), and peripheral arterial disease (n=82).

Conclusions: Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Apparently they are not adapted to avoiding getting sick and dying earlier from the nonsense diet he touts. But don't worry they have anecdotes and excuses that "everyone is different" and appeals to ancestral genetics that don't hold up.

@Simon E:
That is funny that a doctor is bragging about two of the worst things you can do for your personal health: drinking alcohol and eating meat. Yet you wasted my time on numerous occasions supporting the allopathic medical model, where instead of actually advising people to not eat meat or not drink alcohol(or better yet, let them pay the real cost to society, so that almost no one can afford to make them habits) you give them pills. And when the pills do not work enough, you can cut up the meat addict like a pig and replace the arteries in his heart with veins in his knees! Or you can watch the alcoholic get liver disease, dementia(which meat addicts also get often), etc. No wonder why most doctors used to be believe tobacco propaganda and tout its health benefits a few decades ago. Most of them simply don't care about much outside of personal comfort.

Eating meat is not a personal choice under your disgusting personal choice doctrine. No nurse wants to wash the nasty dirty feet, of fat old people who disable themselves with arthritis, diabetes and high blood pressure because they just thought they had to eat meat. No one wants to work in a slaughterhouse if they have a better option or proper immigration status. As a doctor, that you and your ilk don't know or countenance the negative effects of meat consumption on personal and societal health is beyond pathetic. Not to mention the environmental impacts, the cruelty and continuing massacre of animals, etc.

@Carnists:
If you continue to make up nonsense health arguments, nonsense "first world privilege" arguments, ethical arguments, make no mistake you will countered. You lot have nothing, but air in this regard and a cowardice to admit the real reasons you consume meat: habit, convenience, taste addiction.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:38 pm

Thrasymachus, when I wrote this...:


Lhug-Pa wrote:Now as you know I don't always agree with you Nemo, and when I do agree with you on occasion I think you're spot on.

If the energy that gets spent on the intense advocating of vegetarianism and veganism were to get put into exposing the corporatocracy as the tyranny that it is as a whole, that would be a much better start.

For example, expose the draconian corporatists and their planet/body-destroying artificial/synthetic-chemicals (Pesticides: Monsanto/Dow/DuPont/Bayer, big agri/food: Nestle/Pepsi/etc./factory-farming, big oil/fracking: Koch Brothers, and big pharma, etc.) first, and THEN see what can be done to reduce animal-killing more. Otherwise it's like focusing on one tentacle of the programmed-to-kill robotic squid instead aiming at the body of it.

For example here's a recent tyrannical move, this time by the FDA :

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _28612.cfm

http://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/spe ... riculture/

This^ is exactly the kind of nanny/police-state and military-industrial-complex controlled government/corporate regulation that conspires to puts things like independent Organic Farming and Natural-Medicine out of business.

I'm actually okay with regulation if it's beneficial, however if regulation is based on corruption (greed/corporatism) like the FDA/Monsanto/big-pharma etc. is, then I'm with the Libertarians in saying that deregulation at least puts the 1% good 'ol boy network corporatocracy at more of a disadvantage (considering that the regulators these days are almost always paid off by the giant corporations that they're supposed to be regulating).

Also, I would rather see GMO labeling; and, at the same time if you think about it, GMO labeling is actually unnecessary if people would just take the time to look at where their food is coming from. For example, if you look behind the scenes a little, the buying of "Back to Nature" products actually supports atrocious corporations like Coca-Cola or Nestle etc. even though "Back to Nature" is certified organic. Now if you support products from Nature's Path (who are also certified organic), you're actually supporting a more independent and ethical company.

Buying so much as a pack of aspartame-loaded gum from any of the following sadistic corporations supports the corporatocracy more than eating an organic grass-fed steak ever would:


http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/th ... epsi_p.jpg

consumption.jpg
consumption.jpg (365.93 KiB) Viewed 505 times



...it wasn't to advocate carnism. I agree with Vajrayana Teacher's saying that those without the capacity to create a positive cause for animals would be better off being vegetarian.

And about your argument about eating hair and nails, hair and nails can't be used to make a connection to animals; for example because when a practitioner manifests the Rainbow Body, the hair and nails are left behind due to not being an actual part of the organism; from what I understand.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:55 pm

This whole Varjayana excuse of gurus and disciples who have supernatural powers to liberate animals from other realms, yet they need to sell books, talks, retreats and don't have the worldly power to solve their money problems or deal with the Tibet-China dispute, is about as realistic as the Marvel super-villain, Galactus the devourer of worlds existing but having to use money to do his evil deeds instead of the "power cosmic". That is about how ridiculous it is.

It is also ridiculous to try to bring corporatism and imperialism into this. The average person in the developed world is largely ignorant and loves massive escapism. But on some level they know their meat consumption, oversized houses and cars are connected directly to the suffering of the Global South. If they had to choose between living the lifestyle and eating the diets of former Kings and Queens, high in meat and milk consumption, or saving lives in starving nations, they would choose their own alleged comfortable lifestyle(which is a delusion, being fat and sick is not comfortable). After-all they don't care about the negative impacts of their diet on themselves or their own alleged loved ones, either. That is how important it is under the carnist ideology to try to socially peacock and emulate the rich.

Carnism is alot like the practice of foot binding in China:
Image
People medically cripple themselves via the fork and knife over decades to show how wealthy and powerful they are to others.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:27 am

ATTENTION: The thread was locked because it once again started abounding with ad homs and plain negative speech. This topic should be discussed (as any topic on this site) with mutual respect for those who hold different views, and without condescending sarcasm or insults. Just stick to the points, and let them speak for themselves. If there are any more insults, including generalizations, whomever is the perpetrator will receive a formal warning or suspension.

Play nice or no dice.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:27 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Just as you make the choice to pay taxes, and to engage in a diet that is possible (especially with stuff like "meat alternatives") purely because of your position of first world privilege, which makes you as "guilty" from that standpoint as someone who buys meat.


What country do people live in where they can actually choose to pay taxes or not? I have never heard of anyone being given a choice as to whether or not they can pay taxes. Now donations are very much a choice, so that would be true of donations because donations are entirely voluntary. One actually chooses to make a donation or not. Taxes, by their very definition, are involuntary, meaning there is no choice. Also, no one chooses to be born in a first world country either, so there is no choice there either. Unless they are some highly powerful Bodhisattva or something like that!
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:36 pm

Many UK citizens choose not to pay taxes...they simply spend part of the year elsewhere and keep their money an offshore account. The richer they are the less likely they are to pay tax.

:focus:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:46 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Just as you make the choice to pay taxes, and to engage in a diet that is possible (especially with stuff like "meat alternatives") purely because of your position of first world privilege, which makes you as "guilty" from that standpoint as someone who buys meat.


What country do people live in where they can actually choose to pay taxes or not? I have never heard of anyone being given a choice as to whether or not they can pay taxes.


Yes, that's what I was going to say. Choosing to buy meat is a free choice, paying taxes is not. It seems like another strawman to me.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:48 pm

porpoise wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Just as you make the choice to pay taxes, and to engage in a diet that is possible (especially with stuff like "meat alternatives") purely because of your position of first world privilege, which makes you as "guilty" from that standpoint as someone who buys meat.


What country do people live in where they can actually choose to pay taxes or not? I have never heard of anyone being given a choice as to whether or not they can pay taxes.


Yes, that's what I was going to say. Choosing to buy meat is a free choice, paying taxes is not. It seems like another strawman to me.

See my post above, its not a strawman. Many UK citizens choose to find ways around paying taxes.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:35 pm

Simon E. wrote:Many UK citizens choose not to pay taxes...they simply spend part of the year elsewhere and keep their money an offshore account. The richer they are the less likely they are to pay tax.

:focus:

There are more than a few in the US who do this. One of them was a major-party candidate for president in 2012.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _see_.html
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:39 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:This whole Varjayana excuse of gurus and disciples who have supernatural powers to liberate animals from other realms, yet they need to sell books, talks, retreats and don't have the worldly power to solve their money problems or deal with the Tibet-China dispute, is about as realistic as the Marvel super-villain, Galactus the devourer of worlds existing but having to use money to do his evil deeds instead of the "power cosmic". That is about how ridiculous it is.

It is also ridiculous to try to bring corporatism and imperialism into this. The average person in the developed world is largely ignorant and loves massive escapism. But on some level they know their meat consumption, oversized houses and cars are connected directly to the suffering of the Global South. If they had to choose between living the lifestyle and eating the diets of former Kings and Queens, high in meat and milk consumption, or saving lives in starving nations, they would choose their own alleged comfortable lifestyle(which is a delusion, being fat and sick is not comfortable). After-all they don't care about the negative impacts of their diet on themselves or their own alleged loved ones, either. That is how important it is under the carnist ideology to try to socially peacock and emulate the rich.

People medically cripple themselves via the fork and knife over decades to show how wealthy and powerful they are to others.


This post is self-contradictory. First you claim that it is "ridiculous to try to bring corporatism [...] into this" discussion, but then in the same paragraph, you do precisely this by introducing class into your commentary: the tendency among the poor to "socially peacock and emulate the rich" is precisely a corporate strategy, as you surely know.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:41 pm

Another reminder from the moderator:

Thrasymachus wrote:Oh man, these crazy anecdotal Annie carnists


This is an example of an ad hominem: attacking persons rather than addressing ideas.

Use ad hominems and expect moderator action.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Simon E. wrote:Many UK citizens choose not to pay taxes...they simply spend part of the year elsewhere and keep their money an offshore account. The richer they are the less likely they are to pay tax.

:focus:


Ok, But that still does not address the fact that taxes, by definition, are involuntary and therefore not a choice.

Definition of tax in English
tax
Syllabification: (tax)
Pronunciation: /taks/
noun:
1a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

Directing the subject to tax loopholes misses the whole point.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:18 pm

It was you that decided to respond to the tax issue when it was put by Johnny..
Of course its off topic.

Lets get back to the matter in hand.
I have had three main teachers. One monastic who disrobed. One monastic who has remained a monk. One who has never been a monk.
All are, or were, well known teachers of Vajrayana/Dzogchen.
None are, or were, vegetarian.
None are, or were, advocates of a vegetarian diet.
One in fact thought that adopting a vegetarian diet was a lost opportunity to influence the Karmic stream of a sentient being in the most compassionate way possible.

Take his view or leave it. I don't mind either way. :smile:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:32 pm

Simon E. wrote:
porpoise wrote:Yes, that's what I was going to say. Choosing to buy meat is a free choice, paying taxes is not. It seems like another strawman to me.


See my post above, its not a strawman. Many UK citizens choose to find ways around paying taxes.


I can't just choose not to pay tax in the way I can choose not to buy meat, and even I could it wouldn't be ethical. It isn't a meaningful comparison, and seems like a very convoluted argument to make.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:47 pm

So forget it...not that I originally made the argument. :smile:

I don't need to make an argument for eating meat.
I really don't mind what YOU eat, I am far too polite to even consider it my business, and what I eat is between me and my teacher...end of story.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:24 pm

Simon E. wrote:It was you that decided to respond to the tax issue when it was put by Johnny..
Of course its off topic.


Yes, I was addressing Johnny's statement that a choice to pay taxes entails the same responsibility as what you chose to eat. This does not sound reasonable as one is not even a choice to begin with. The only way it could be equivalent is when one has no other choice in what to eat or not eat.

Lets get back to the matter in hand.
I have had three main teachers. One monastic who disrobed. One monastic who has remained a monk. One who has never been a monk.
All are, or were, well known teachers of Vajrayana/Dzogchen.
None are, or were, vegetarian.
None are, or were, advocates of a vegetarian diet.
One in fact thought that adopting a vegetarian diet was a lost opportunity to influence the Karmic stream of a sentient being in the most compassionate way possible.

Take his view or leave it. I don't mind either way. :smile:


And there are well known teachers who are vegetarians who do advocate a vegetarian diet, even in Tibetan Buddhism. Probably why the thread is titled "the great vegetarian debate"

Simon E. wrote:So forget it...not that I originally made the argument. :smile:

I don't need to make an argument for eating meat.
I really don't mind what YOU eat, I am far too polite to even consider it my business, and what I eat is between me and my teacher...end of story.


Some people do mind what others eat, because the effect of those choices go far beyond the individual person. And because someone is concerned about that, does not mean they are being impolite. The effects of one's food choices extends far beyond oneself and ones teacher!
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:33 pm

Please feel free to concern yourself about what other chaps have for dinner if that interests you.
My sole interest in this debate is to ensure that it remains clear to those who may not know, that diet is very much a secondary issue in Buddhadharma and should never be seen as a bar to those who are exploring the teachings of the Buddha.
There are schools that insist on a vegetarian diet.
There are schools that insist on meat eating on specific occasions.
And there are other schools which have nothing to say on the issue at all.
Which school one orients to is an entirely individual matter.
Last edited by Simon E. on Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:34 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Just as you make the choice to pay taxes, and to engage in a diet that is possible (especially with stuff like "meat alternatives") purely because of your position of first world privilege, which makes you as "guilty" from that standpoint as someone who buys meat.


What country do people live in where they can actually choose to pay taxes or not? I have never heard of anyone being given a choice as to whether or not they can pay taxes. Now donations are very much a choice, so that would be true of donations because donations are entirely voluntary. One actually chooses to make a donation or not. Taxes, by their very definition, are involuntary, meaning there is no choice. Also, no one chooses to be born in a first world country either, so there is no choice there either. Unless they are some highly powerful Bodhisattva or something like that!



There is a history in the US (for example) of people refusing to pay taxes to protest war. Of course it can get you in trouble, but that's the point..if you want to get on your high horse about lifestyle choices, you'd think it could at least be something that inconveniences you. You guys keep either missing or dodging the simple point i'm making:

There are many other significant indirect ways that you contribute to killing which you're choosing to arbitrarily ignore in favor of vegetarianism/veganism.

If you want to use the scriptural reasons for vegetarianism, I fully respect that, if you want to pretend you are somehow being more moral by making a choice that's made easier due to your living where you do though, it's a pretty weak claim.

Some people do mind what others eat, because the effect of those choices go far beyond the individual person. And because someone is concerned about that, does not mean they are being impolite. The effects of one's food choices extends far beyond oneself and ones teacher!



No, it just means they have an absurd argument most of the time.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:40 pm

Personally Johnny if someone opts for a vegetarian diet on what they see as ethical grounds then that is their choice to make.
What concerns me is any suggestion that there is a Buddhist consensus on the issue. A standard Buddhist teaching which cuts across schools.
There simply isn't. And never has been.
Its all about a personal decision. Both ways.
No one for example has to join the Dzogchen community, but if they decide to do so they will be required to eat meat.
Just as no one has to join Sanghas that insist on a vegetarian diet.
Last edited by Simon E. on Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:42 pm

Simon E. wrote:What concerns me is any suggestion that there is a Buddhist consensus on the issue.
There simply isn't. And never has been.


This is the primary reason why this thread continues to spiral around in circles, with the same arguments repeated endlessly. It's an issue on which reasonable and well-intentioned persons will have grounds for disagreement.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smcj and 10 guests

>