When Buddhists get a tick....

[Moth]

I think we're over-analyzing this. You're not 100% guaranteed to get a disease, and if you do its not as if they're not treatable. Either way, if you kill the tick you kill the tick, do not look for justification. You value your own life over its life, either that or you value human life in general over that of a tick. I'm not implying any judgment value here, just trying to state things as they are. If you leave the tick then you accept the risk towards yourself for the sake of its life.

Also, I think the argument that letting it live would harm another being is invalid. There are infinitely many ticks, you sparing one's life isn't going to make a difference. Just because a tick exists near you doesn't mean you are duty bound to kill it, for the sake of other beings, for if that were the case we'd need to be preemptively killing many, many, ticks as they are all over the place.

[Goedert]

According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.

Hammalawa Saddhatissa, Buddhist Ethics. Wisdom Publications, 1997, pages 60, 159.

[PeterB]

I will accept that Goedert. And I will consciously and deliberately kill ticks, mosquitoes and anything else that threatens the life of my family and community. And accept the consequences. You make your decision and I will make mine.

[PeterB]

I think we're over-analyzing this. You're not 100% guaranteed to get a disease, and if you do its not as if they're not treatable. Either way, if you kill the tick you kill the tick, do not look for justification. You value your own life over its life, either that or you value human life in general over that of a tick. I'm not imply any judgment value here, just trying to state things as they are. If you leave the tick then you accept the risk towards yourself for the sake of its life. I am not speaking for myself, but I believe one who has truly let go of all things would not kill the being to save his/her own skin. Also I think the argument of letting it live would harm another being is invalid. There are infinitely many ticks, you sparing one's life isn't going to make a difference. Just because a tick exists near you doesn't mean you are duty bound to kill it, for the sake of other beings, for if that were the case we'd need to be preemptively killing many, many, ticks as they are all over the place.

I do absolutely value my life and my families life and your life and any human life over the life of a tick.
I think anyone that doesnt has serious, SERIOUS issues.
This thread has become so surreal and so divorced from reality that I will take my leave of it and wish you all well.

[Goedert]

I will accept that Goedert. And I will consciously and deliberately kill ticks, mosquitoes and anything else that threatens the life of my family and community. And accept the consequences. You make your decision and I will make mine.

Friend, you speak truth.

As said you said in an earlier post. Lay persons are encouraged, but not obgliged, to commit themselves in observance of The Five Pãncsila.

[tiltbillings]

Here is a question:

The neighbors cat is really a stray, however the neighbor feeds it usually. It comes by my home sometimes and we give it milk. Now, that cat goes out and kills mice and birds. Is feeding it milk enabling it to go kill other sentient beings and cause them misery? (birds and mice have feelings too and don't want to die. They only want to be happy. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't run from danger. They also have children that they must feed.)

Maybe I should not feed the cat milk according to the faulty logic being put forth here.

Milk is not a good food for a cat. House cats should not be let outside, given that they kill far more than they eat and are very destructive of birds in particular. What should you do? Take some responsibility here, talk to your neighbor and if that does not work, call the local animal control, given the cat is being neglected and the owner is likely in violation of the local law.

Maybe I should take that logic further and even though I don't feed it myself, I should convince my neighbor not to feed it too.

The cat does not need to be outside. That is your neighbors responsibility and it is why there are laws in most communities concerning that.

Maybe I should take this wretched logic one step further and just club the f*ing the thing, the g*damn killer cat. I do have a baseball bat in the house that would crack its little head and crush her skull, you know...

Nice try, Kevin. If the cat has an owner, it is the owner's responsibility to control it. You obviously have a face, take some responsibility, show some real compassion in action and open it: express your concern about about the cat's killing of song birds and other animals. The death of song birds by cats in the USA is in the hundreds of millions; an estimated 39 million are killed annually in Wisconsin.

Also, a cat like that is likely to be full of parasites, which means its life is miserable and will be short. Feeding it an inappropriate food is not compassion, ignoring the results of having a cat run loose is not compassion for the cat or its prey and there is no compassion expressed in you little story towards your neighbor. So, Kevin, what are you going to do? I suppose, in the very least, you could cut bits and pieces of flesh from your body to feed it, but barring that try to show real compassion for the situation.

Do you see where this faulty logic leads?

Yes, I see where your faulty logic goes and I see nothing here of you taking any compassionate responsibility for you actions or the situation. When you do, let us know.

[tiltbillings]

No. Thats a strawcat.
Its called The Slippery Slope Fallacy.

No it isn't. Thinking that letting a tick live is wrong simply because it might infect others is the slippery slope. The tick may live or may not, you do not know and cannot control it. Ticks have a short lifespan. There is just as much chance it will die before infecting another. Besides, you don't even know if the tick has Lyme or not! How can you condemn it without even knowing?

Why take the chance?

[acinteyyo]

I do absolutely value my life and my families life and your life and any human life over the life of a tick.

Views like this will lead to suffering.

I think anyone that doesnt has serious, SERIOUS issues.

Some may have serious issues, others may have wisdom.

No. Thats a strawcat.
Its called The Slippery Slope Fallacy.

No it isn't. Thinking that letting a tick live is wrong simply because it might infect others is the slippery slope. The tick may live or may not, you do not know and cannot control it. Ticks have a short lifespan. There is just as much chance it will die before infecting another. Besides, you don't even know if the tick has Lyme or not! How can you condemn it without even knowing?

Why take the chance?

why engage in wild speculations?

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Annapurna]

Here is a question:

The neighbors cat is really a stray, however the neighbor feeds it usually. It comes by my home sometimes and we give it milk. Now, that cat goes out and kills mice and birds. Is feeding it milk enabling it to go kill other sentient beings and cause them misery? (birds and mice have feelings too and don't want to die. They only want to be happy. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't run from danger. They also have children that they must feed.)

Maybe I should not feed the cat milk according to the faulty logic being put forth here.

Maybe I should take that logic further and even though I don't feed it myself, I should convince my neighbor not to feed it too. By condoning my neighbors actions when I see her and she brings up the cat and tell me that she fed it, gave it milk, aren't I enabling the cat to kill too. How far should this be taken? Is nodding and praising her activity, condoning it, helping to enable the cat to kill too? According to the line of logic being put forth here, I should not condone my neighbors feeding this cat. When she brings it up I should avert my gaze, walk away, or just tell her she should not do it. Otherwise I am enabling this cat.

Maybe I should take this wretched logic one step further and just club the f*ing the thing, the g*damn killer cat. I do have a baseball bat in the house that would crack its little head and crush her skull, you know...

Do you see where this faulty logic leads?
ic led you?


Kevin

Don't point at the faulty logic of others, Kevin, yours is too.

You argue that feeding a cat will "enable it to kill".

How so? You didn't know my cat Jeannie, who gave up hunting mice because she got admonished not to, but insisted on bringing living birds, to trade them in for milk....

A hungry cat is always keen on hunting, a well-fed cat is not (so much).

Do you see where your faulty logic led you-?

[tiltbillings]

.

Besides, you don't even know if the tick has Lyme or not! How can you condemn it without even knowing?

Why take the chance?

why engage in wild speculations?

You allow a deer tick to feed, which is necessary for its egg to mature and hatch and you allow the deer tick to return to is natural habitat where at least one human came into contact with it, it is not much of a stretcgh at all to assume that other humans could come into contact with it or its off-spring. Why take the chance? Is that the compassionate thing to do?

[tiltbillings]

I do absolutely value my life and my families life and your life and any human life over the life of a tick.

Views like this will lead to suffering.

Not that you have shown, but the suffering caused by Lyme's vectored by deer ticks is well known.

[Annapurna]

I do absolutely value my life and my families life and your life and any human life over the life of a tick.

Views like this will lead to suffering.

At e sangha, Venerable Dhammanande and other Vens explained, that there are higher evolved beings and less evolved beings.

Somebody told us that he saved a kitten from fireants.

A few of the ants didn't want to let go of it and so died. The monks explained, that he did right to save the kitten, even if a few ants died, as he did not intend to kill them, only to remove them.
They said protecting the higher evolved being against less evolved beings is correct, becuase it has more sense faculties than insects, 5 vs 4, so it will suffer more.

Therefore, PeterB's view is correct.

Mosqzitos can be caught alive, at least in Northern Europe.

Snakes too.

Ticks can surely be removed alive, however, I try to, but they are dead afterwards.

It's not my intention, but I kill them, somehow, and will certainly remove them each time I get one.

I read flushing it down the toilet will not kill it.

What will it do in the sewer system?

Prolly find a rat. In case it is still alive.

It may sound cruel, but some insects are very resilient, and ticks apparently too.

[tiltbillings]

Here is a cute little eye worm taken live from some unfortunate person's eye. This worm will die outside the host. So, which one of you want to become the new host for our little friend?

http://www.lifesyrup.com/watch_video.ph ... 7cc36170e1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Annapurna]

Holy shit

[Virgo]

I'm leaving this conversation because some peoples views are twisted. The Buddha taught not to kill. Eye worms may affect peoples eyes; however, killing is the cause of negative kamma. Because you kill, in future lifetimes you will be crushed, killed, injured, hunted, and so on. So your "compassionate fight" only leads to some negative kamma erupting in the future, where you are afflicted again.

Kevin