the great vegetarian debate

[Thrasymachus]

@PadmaVonSamba:
Again with the reductionist dharma approach. If you believed that is all that mattered, whether you could narrowly practice dharma or not, why would you be the biggest producer of apologia for the ethics of carnism lately in this thread? Since compassion doesn't matter, only meditative practice why produce those arguments? We can look at societies much more dedicated to dharma in the past and present to see how this reductionism works:
1. A shocking study in Bhutan shows 70% of women say they deserved domestic abuse under many conditions.
2. Article on the Ldab Ldob, violent monks of Tibet who beat up other monks, they even kidnapped and raped boys, and were estimated to compromise 10% of larger monasteries
It seems you have a fetishized, unrealistic image where you mistake dharma ideals for something that has or can be translated to reality. The huge apologia for carnism seen in this thread, is even worse than mainstream American discourse on the same issue. The American mainstream mostly argues that, "God created animals to serve man," and that "they taste good," which. However much of the dharma apologia for carnism is far worse because it actually tries to guilt vegetarians for not being able to do or see the impossible. Wouldn't it be more compassionate and closer to realization to not produce such arguments urging less compassion?

@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards. This is the problem with followers of carnism, they cannot understand a world were humans do not have some kind of natural right to totally enslave animals. They consider animals so inferior they should face the greatest tortures devised by humanity, and that these animals should be thankful merely for living.

You think your dietary choice triumphs the right of other beings to be free and not suffer. They never get a choice about anything in the industrial food system. They are treated as raw inputs and dragged with forklifts violently and ground up while still alive to feed to other livestock when their health fails. I don't think you could stand to live as they do, or have your family treated as they are treated, and just be thankful for their or your opportunity to be alive.

[PadmaVonSamba]

@PadmaVonSamba:
Again with the reductionist dharma approach. If you believed that is all that mattered, whether you could narrowly practice dharma or not, why would you be the biggest producer of apologia for the ethics of carnism lately in this thread? ...

It's fun.

@PadmaVonSamba:
It seems you have a fetishized, unrealistic image where you mistake dharma ideals for something that has or can be translated to reality.

If you think dharma teachings are unrealistic, why are you posting here at all?
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

@PadmaVonSamba:
We can look at societies much more dedicated to dharma in the past and present to see how this reductionism works:
1. A shocking study in Bhutan shows 70% of women say they deserved domestic abuse under many conditions.
2. Article on the Ldab Ldob, violent monks of Tibet who beat up other monks, they even kidnapped and raped boys, and were estimated to compromise 10% of larger monasteries

How can you meditate on top of such a high horse?
It might be better to climb down off of it, cook it, and eat it.
Real heroes don't go around boasting about how much better it is to be a hero.

Yes, samsara has very long reaching tentacles. It is really amazing how messed up people can get.
Even buddhism is not exempt from the truth of suffering.

And Hitler was a vegetarian. So, even some vegetarians are bad too.

Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______

If the answer is yes, then why is it okay for one species to eat meat and not another?
That just sounds like speciesism to me.
If the answer is no, then what shall we do with them so that they stop killing?
I used to know this guy a long time ago, Alex Pacheco. A very nice guy.
We used to hang out and talk about stuff, and he told me all about speciesism.
then he went and stated a group called Peta.
I haven't heard from him since then but I think he is quite famous now.

You may think Buddhists who eat meat are hypocrites.
Buddhism is open to hypocrites too. It is a very accepting philosophy.
But the animal rights philosophy is also hypocritical.
it says that people shouldn't eat meat because eating meat is wrong.
But it argues that ethical concepts of right and wrong do not apply to animals, only to people.
But people are also animals.
So if you say a rule applies to one set of animals and not another,
that is also hypocritical.


I totally support vegetarianism.
I am 98% vegetarian, down slightly from 100%.
I have my own garden but it takes a long time because I try to be very careful not to kill worms or other bugs.
You see? I am a nice guy!!!!
I think veganism is a bit wacko, but that's just my opinion.

All of the concerns about the meat industry and everything are well founded.
I already agreed with you that as long as people keep buying meat the killing of animals will continue.

But that doesn't have much to do with Buddhism.
Since you already said, basically, that you don't really believe that the teachings of the dharma are valid,
it shouldn't matter to you.

Anyhow, please answer my yes/no question.


.
.
.

[Nemo]

Before eating a practicing Tibetan Buddhist would offer the food to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. This alone is a very auspicious connection. Worth 18 months as a cow IMO.

Then a mantra would be recited that frees the animal from any further rebirths as a food animal. With this mantra and enough Buddhists eventually all beings will be blessed and the Karmic cause of being a food animal will be exhausted. Without the need for neurotically obsessing about the purity of ones food.

Then it is offered to the Guru, Tathagatas, Protectors, personal deities and the Four Guardian Kings who take it from the Mandala of your body.

,...Or you could be a Vegan and have no compassion for the beings who are reborn as food animals. Then compound that with a vicious pride about being better than everyone else. Your choice.

[Bhusuku]

I really don't get why so many people here seem to be (sometimes quite desperately) in need of (sometimes really absurd) justifications about what they like to eat or don't like to eat... If a simple issue like "what do you like or don't like to be on your plate?" can cause so many quarrels, so much judging, irritation and bashing each other - even among buddhist practitioners - it really doesn't come as a surprise that there is so much hate and violence going on here on this small blue ball.

Namdrol wrote a wonderful post in the "Dzogchen and Buddhism" thread where he's talking about the necessity to overcome our own limitations regarding religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe to participate in changing the world. But honestly, I don't see this happen very soon if we can't even overcome our limited ideas about what other people should eat or not eat.

[tobes]

@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards. This is the problem with followers of carnism, they cannot understand a world were humans do not have some kind of natural right to totally enslave animals. They consider animals so inferior they should face the greatest tortures devised by humanity, and that these animals should be thankful merely for living.

You think your dietary choice triumphs the right of other beings to be free and not suffer. They never get a choice about anything in the industrial food system. They are treated as raw inputs and dragged with forklifts violently and ground up while still alive to feed to other livestock when their health fails. I don't think you could stand to live as they do, or have your family treated as they are treated, and just be thankful for their or your opportunity to be alive.

I would totally agree that it is better to be free than to be enslaved.

But you haven't dealt with nub of the argument: is existence more morally valuable than non-existence? These are the terms of your position.

Your grounding premise is that it is, which is why animals ought not be killed.

But if that is the case, how can justify the fact that your position precludes them from being born? In this case, you are clearly denying the possibility of particular animals existing, and contradicting your core claim that existence is more morally valuable than non-existence.

Now don't be evasive on this - I agree with your claims about factory farming et al. Let us bracket those issues for a moment and consider animals raised and killed for meat in a free range/organic way.

How can you reconcile your core claim that sentient existence is morally valuable, whilst advocating a position which precludes animals from existing in the first instance?

[practitioner]

Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______

No, it's not okay. That is why strive to not be born as one of those creatures in the animal realm. They don't have a choice, we do. That is just one of the many benefits of our precious human rebirth.

[LastLegend]

Animals want to live, we want to live. Animals feel pain, we feel pain. So raise them as pets but torture and don't kill them.

[PadmaVonSamba]

@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards.

My earliest ancestors were chased up into trees by predatory carnivores.
the ones who couldn't get away fast enough got eaten and never had offspring.
the ones who got away did so because they started standing up more on their back legs.
they are the ones who reproduced, and their kids stood upright too.
Gradually they evolved into homo sapiens.
In Africa.

If you enjoy the fact that there is a human realm,
where you can be born and practice dharma,
thank a predatory carnivore.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______

No, it's not okay. That is why strive to not be born as one of those creatures in the animal realm. They don't have a choice, we do. That is just one of the many benefits of our precious human rebirth.

What about vultures and jackals and hyenas, who only eat what other animals have already killed?
is it okay for them to eat meat?
.
.
.

[Nemo]

Scientist finds Vegans so annoying he proves they are self righteous, judgmental douches,

"When it came to helping out a needy stranger, the organic people also proved to be more selfish, volunteering only 13 minutes as compared to 19 minutes (for controls) and 24 minutes (for comfort food folks)."

http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/ ... in=bodyodd

[Thrasymachus]

That study has nothing to do with vegans. It has to do with organic vs non-organic and even then the study is very bad. It is based on personal evaluation:

...

As it turns out, new research has determined that a judgmental attitude may just go hand in hand with exposure to organic foods. ...

In another phase of the study, the three groups were asked to volunteer for a (fictitious) study, with each person writing down the amount of time -- from zero to 30 minutes -- that they would be willing to volunteer.

...

When it came to helping out a needy stranger, the organic people also proved to be more selfish, volunteering only 13 minutes as compared to 19 minutes (for controls) and 24 minutes (for comfort food folks).

If it based on anything, it is based on income, since to purchase 100% organic you have to be fairly economically privileged. To become economically privileged you have to do what is necessary to suck up in school and then to a corporation, that is to make a compact for yourself against the rest of society. Also if you ask people how they behave, they will give a more positive picture compared to the reality. Someone who thinks more about their food choices is likely to be more contemplative in other areas and thus less likely to create a false positive portrayal. If you are fat by eating comfort foods, it does not stop at you. This TED talk does a good explanation of how the obese people affect the social networks around them and make it more acceptable to be heavier: http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_chris ... works.html It radiates out and negatively influences those around you.

The fact that you would flat up lie about what that news article you linked to contained, or think such flawed methodology says something about vegans or vegetarians, actually says much more about you.

[Nemo]

Sorry. I kind of lump all people who are neurotic about food purity into the same boat. I still find it hilarious that a scientist would actually devote his time to proving eating special food made people act like douchebags. Who would take the time to prove such a thing, bwahahahaha

The study used control groups so there was no economic privilege in respondents. Obviously you didn't pay much attention to the article either.

[Challenge23]

I've always thought of eating, like most thing in life, as a continuum.

On one end you have people like Jains who aren't only vegetarian but wear something to cover their mouths so they don't suck in bugs, etc. On the other hand you have people like Anthony Bourdain who eat veal, foie gras, and Ortolan Bunting.

The thing is that everyone in the whole continuum cause suffering in their food choices. One side causes very, very little suffering while the other side causes a great deal of suffering. Of course, there are consequences no matter where you sit on the continuum. So the question becomes not "if" someone wants to causes suffering with their food choices as much as "how much".

And since the consequences for someone's dietary choices are their own, other than explaining how I personally view the continuum, it really isn't my business where they sit. Unless I am eating with them and they make noises while eating that make me wonder if they are eating meat or having sex with it. That's a personal thing, though.

[justsit]

[Malcolm]

If it based on anything, it is based on income, since to purchase 100% organic you have to be fairly economically privileged.

Nonsense, you just have to be willing to cook.

M

[PadmaVonSamba]

If it based on anything, it is based on income, since to purchase 100% organic you have to be fairly economically privileged.

Nonsense, you just have to be willing to cook.

M

I do all the cooking and food buying for our family. Organic costs more. But pre-packaged foods also cost more than buying ingredients and making it yourself.

[Thrasymachus]

@Challenge23:
Dietary choices are not just a selfish or personal consumer option that should be exempt from judgment or morality. No animal in the history of carnism ever volunteered to be slaughtered for human taste preferences far as I know. Those choices effect the slaughter of several billion animals per year just in the USA. The best description of their slaughtered livesL is imagine Africans on European galley ships making Oceanic transit, and imagine them never leaving those horrible conditions for most of their short life and imagine them being considered even more inferior by humans and imagine the treatment of those slaves being 10 times worse. In the developed nations, there is an inverse food pyramid, the whole structure of food subsidies, regulations and weak environmental safeguards are based on the false assumption that meat needs to be made artificially cheaper so it can be consumed more. The negative effects of meat consumption are also further subsidized in public health expenditures.

My experience is that no practicer of carnism in my social circle will even watch the documentary Earthlings or even PETA's short Meet your Meat. How can we actually respect people who just want to throw money for shrink wrapped suffering and ignore totally the causes and conditions behind it? They seem on the other hand very capable to follow celebrities, what consumer product they lust over, and other stupid trivialities. Everything you do has consequences and one of those is that when you take the moral low ground and want to ignore suffering, you should be judged accordingly.

@PadmaVonSamba:
Before you brought up about carnivores, "is it ok for them to eat meat"? The dharmic supporters of carnism like you tried to guilt vegetarians that they did not do the impossible by not killing bugs or micro-organisms. Now create hypothetical scenarios about obligate carnivores, and about them doing the impossible, not killing prey for food, since they don't have the physiology to metabolize plant foods.

That you use so much hypothetical pondering over the impossible to ignore the real and possible, shows that you feel the need to erode ethical positions by means of a stratified moral relativism. Milton Mills of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM) in a Youtube video points out that real carnivores who kill for food, show behavior diametrically opposite to humans in their hunting strategy. When a carnivore hunts they tend to given a choice, always prey on the weak, the diseased the dumb in a herd or population, since they are easier to catch and kill. Humans are in no way carnivores or even omnivores. When humans hunts they use tools, even the simpler ones like spears and bow and arrow allow distance. When humans hunt, unlike carnivores, they target the largest specimens, the most viral and healthy. Mills observes that we transfix a herbivore mentality of selecting the best fruit or plant in our carnistic ideology, since as hunters we seek the best. Thus when humans hunt they degrade a species genetically, while real carnivores actually improve the health of a herd.

[PadmaVonSamba]

@PadmaVonSamba:
Before you brought up about carnivores, "is it ok for them to eat meat"? The dharmic supporters of carnism like you tried to guilt vegetarians that they did not do the impossible by not killing bugs or micro-organisms.

First of all, I am not guilt-tripping vegetarians. I was a very strict vegetarian for 16 years. I do not eat meat 98% of the time. Vegetarian is great.

You totally miss the point, which is that just because you choose not to eat meat does not mean you aren't willingly contributing to the suffering and death of billions of creatures through your own life choices. You are. Deal with it.

...you feel the need to erode ethical positions by means of a stratified moral relativism.

The whole discussion, from a vegetarian activist viewpoint is about moral relativism.

...real carnivores who kill for food, show behavior diametrically opposite to humans in their hunting strategy. When a carnivore hunts they tend to given a choice, always prey on the weak, the diseased the dumb in a herd or population, since they are easier to catch and kill.

That is simply not true. That's some kind of fantasy. Cats catch very healthy mice. Carnivores eat and catch whatever they can and that is often due to the ability to outrun their prey, or to spot prey that is not well camouflaged. By the way, primates tend to be smarter than chickens, pigs and cows.

When humans hunts they use tools, even the simpler ones like spears and bow and arrow allow distance. When humans hunt, unlike carnivores, they target the largest specimens, the most viral and healthy.

Yeah, so what? We also waer clothes and use eating utensils and draw pictures. We do a lot of things differently than other animals. And that is something you seem to forget. We are humans, and while Buddhism separates humans and animals into different realms (for a particular purpose), the fact is we are also animals. And animals catch food in a variety of ways. You can't blame a tiger because he doesn't spin a web like a spider.


I have responded to your statements.
I am still waiting for your response to my questions:

Since you believe that it is somehow morally wrong for a human to kill and eat meat or eat meat that has already been killed,

Is it somehow morally wrong for lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carnivores to kill and eat meat?
Is it somehow morally wrong for vultures and jackals and hyenas, to eat meat that other animals have already killed?

The foundation of your argument is that since humans have the capacity to choose not to kill animals and eat meat,
then since killing animals causes suffering, and eating meat encourages killing animals, therefore humans who claim to be compassionate are obliged to make that choice and not kill or eat meat, otherwise they are being hypocritical.

My suggestion is that it isn't really about the suffering of living creatures at all, but it's just your own guilt trip that you have imposed on yourself. We are humans and we are also animals, and like it or not, that means we get to pick and choose. For decades Peta has sent out millions of mailings with literature full of pictures of animal cruelty. But what about all the gelatin (from hooves) used to take those films and photos? What about all the glue from animal bones that sealed all those envelopes? What about the uncountable billions of creatures who died when the trees were cut down to make that paper? You see, even self-righteous vegetarians willingly judge who will suffer and be killed and for what purpose!

But you don't think about all those tiny bugs and things becase it just isn't as emotionally gripping as the sad eyes of a penned up veal calf, snatched from it's mother's udder at infancy, waiting in a filthy dark box until it's short life is ended by the steel blade which swings like an executioner's axe over the killing pit. Boo hoo hoo. This smug, all-superior attitude is just a big ego trip. But in fact, you are just as guilty as the rest of us. The only difference is that your guilt isn't served up to you on a bun with onions and ketchup.

I admit my guilt. I know I am not perfect. And I also know I have my own head trips I need to cut through, which is why try to I practice the teachings of the Buddha. He didn't say to cop some big attitude. He said don't kill. I don't kill anything if I can help it. If meat is served I will eat it. If that impacts the broader economic picture and somehow contributes to the next animal getting killed, then that is the level at which you and I share responsibility, because you contribute to that picture as well. You just don't admit it.

.
.
.

[Stewart]

@PadmaVonSamba:
Before you brought up about carnivores, "is it ok for them to eat meat"? The dharmic supporters of carnism like you tried to guilt vegetarians that they did not do the impossible by not killing bugs or micro-organisms.

First of all, I am not guilt-tripping vegetarians. I was a very strict vegetarian for 16 years. I do not eat meat 98% of the time. Vegetarian is great.

You totally miss the point, which is that just because you choose not to eat meat does not mean you aren't willingly contributing to the suffering and death of billions of creatures through your own life choices. You are. Deal with it.

...you feel the need to erode ethical positions by means of a stratified moral relativism.

The whole discussion, from a vegetarian activist viewpoint is about moral relativism.

...real carnivores who kill for food, show behavior diametrically opposite to humans in their hunting strategy. When a carnivore hunts they tend to given a choice, always prey on the weak, the diseased the dumb in a herd or population, since they are easier to catch and kill.

That is simply not true. That's some kind of fantasy. Cats catch very healthy mice. Carnivores eat and catch whatever they can and that is often due to the ability to outrun their prey, or to spot prey that is not well camouflaged. By the way, primates tend to be smarter than chickens, pigs and cows.

When humans hunts they use tools, even the simpler ones like spears and bow and arrow allow distance. When humans hunt, unlike carnivores, they target the largest specimens, the most viral and healthy.

Yeah, so what? We also waer clothes and use eating utensils and draw pictures. We do a lot of things differently than other animals. And that is something you seem to forget. We are humans, and while Buddhism separates humans and animals into different realms (for a particular purpose), the fact is we are also animals. And animals catch food in a variety of ways. You can't blame a tiger because he doesn't spin a web like a spider.


I have responded to your statements.
I am still waiting for your response to my questions:

Since you believe that it is somehow morally wrong for a human to kill and eat meat or eat meat that has already been killed,

Is it somehow morally wrong for lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carnivores to kill and eat meat?
Is it somehow morally wrong for vultures and jackals and hyenas, to eat meat that other animals have already killed?

The foundation of your argument is that since humans have the capacity to choose not to kill animals and eat meat,
then since killing animals causes suffering, and eating meat encourages killing animals, therefore humans who claim to be compassionate are obliged to make that choice and not kill or eat meat, otherwise they are being hypocritical.

My suggestion is that it isn't really about the suffering of living creatures at all, but it's just your own guilt trip that you have imposed on yourself. We are humans and we are also animals, and like it or not, that means we get to pick and choose. For decades Peta has sent out millions of mailings with literature full of pictures of animal cruelty. But what about all the gelatin (from hooves) used to take those films and photos? What about all the glue from animal bones that sealed all those envelopes? What about the uncountable billions of creatures who died when the trees were cut down to make that paper? You see, even self-righteous vegetarians willingly judge who will suffer and be killed and for what purpose!

But you don't think about all those tiny bugs and things becase it just isn't as emotionally gripping as the sad eyes of a penned up veal calf, snatched from it's mother's udder at infancy, waiting in a filthy dark box until it's short life is ended by the steel blade which swings like an executioner's axe over the killing pit. Boo hoo hoo. This smug, all-superior attitude is just a big ego trip. But in fact, you are just as guilty as the rest of us. The only difference is that your guilt isn't served up to you on a bun with onions and ketchup.

I admit my guilt. I know I am not perfect. And I also know I have my own head trips I need to cut through, which is why try to I practice the teachings of the Buddha. He didn't say to cop some big attitude. He said don't kill. I don't kill anything if I can help it. If meat is served I will eat it. If that impacts the broader economic picture and somehow contributes to the next animal getting killed, then that is the level at which you and I share responsibility, because you contribute to that picture as well. You just don't admit it.

.
.
.