When Buddhists get a tick....

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Training of Sila, the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Goedert » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:42 am

tiltbillings wrote:That is one of the more silly things I have heard all week. So, we take out the parasite without killing, but it needs a host in which to live otherwise it dies. Are you going to volunteer to be the host? The only way to treat the brain parasite is to poison it, so you say we should just let it eat the poor victims brain away.

You still are avoiding the question about the serial killer: The serial killer is about to kill someone, the only way to stop him is to kill him. Do you just let him kill? But since you cannot kill him before he kill the poor victim, he gets away and kills some more, which would then, in part, be on your head as would be the death of victim you could have saved.


Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians.

The serial killer:

"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

— MN 21

You don't understand plain english?
Killing others beings will never be good.
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Annapurna » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:43 am

Tex wrote:
Fede wrote:If you spread vaseline petroleum jelly around the mouth area of the tick, where they are attached, they can't breathe, and have to let go, or else they will suffocate.
I removed two such ticks from my dog, and three off a snake, in this way.


I wasn't aware of this, I will try it if my dog gets another tick. Thanks!


DON'T!!!
:o

Please Tex, don't. If you don't believe me, please google "how to remove a tick safely", and nowhere will you find that vaseline (petroleum jelly, oil, alcohol, nailpolish remover etc, are apt methods, they are DANGEROUS!

Why?

Because when a tick struggles against suffocation, it will often vomit it's stomach's content into the victim's wound, and thus pass on the bacteria that cause an infection.

So please don't!

Plus, the recommed method is to grab it with pincers, and gently pull it up for 3-4 minutes, then it usually lets go.

Here is one of many links, saying the same.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/ld_tickremoval.htm
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Annapurna » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:48 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Virgo wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You deliberately fed this tick; you deliberately allowed it go on its way after feeding, which is to say you take no responsibility for your actions in this, thereby jeopordizing others to the same fun you had with Lyme's disease.

The tick took blood from me of its own accord. I did not invite it to feed. I simply found it feeding and instinctively knew that even moving it would likely kill it because it was so small. So therefore, I did not move it or remove it from my arm knowing that it might die if I did. I guess I enabled it.


Yes. You enabled it to carry on its life cycle with a very good possibility of its off-spring infecting others, which makes what happens next your responsibility. So, if others contracted Lyme's from the off-spring of that tick, it is your responsibility.

Am I also responsible for all of the other ticks that go around infecting people because I don't personally go around killing all of them (the ticks, that is)?


Are you personally feeding those ticks? What we are talking about here is a tick that you, by your choice, allowed to feed off you.


I agree with Tilt.
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:50 am

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:That is one of the more silly things I have heard all week. So, we take out the parasite without killing, but it needs a host in which to live otherwise it dies. Are you going to volunteer to be the host? The only way to treat the brain parasite is to poison it, so you say we should just let it eat the poor victims brain away.

You still are avoiding the question about the serial killer: The serial killer is about to kill someone, the only way to stop him is to kill him. Do you just let him kill? But since you cannot kill him before he kill the poor victim, he gets away and kills some more, which would then, in part, be on your head as would be the death of victim you could have saved.


Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians.
And as usual you just do not answer the question put to you. So, are you willing to be a host for a parasite extracted from someone so that the parasite does not die?

The serial killer:

"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

— MN 21

You don't understand plain english?
Killing others beings will never be good.
The sutta is about one's own life, but I asked you about saving another person whose life is about to be needlessly taken, but you could save it, but you have to kill the serial killer, and if you do not kill the serial killer he kill the victim in front of you, escapes to kill some more. You seem to be saying, let the person die, let the serial killer continue to kill.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby vitellius » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:54 am

tiltbillings wrote:And so the tick remains alive, you put out side somewhere and it infects another human being who is not as smart as we Buddhists are about not going into the forest, and as happens with deer ticks he does not notice that he has been bitten and get Lyme's disease from the tick you saved and released and now he is faced with what can be a crippling and life threatening disease thanks to your compassion and fear of bad kamma.


Maybe. Or maybe not.

Don't you think that according to Theravada killing is always unskillful?
vitellius
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Annapurna » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:59 am

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You deliberately fed this tick; you deliberately allowed it go on its way after feeding, which is to say you take no responsibility for your actions in this, thereby jeopordizing others to the same fun you had with Lyme's disease.


Virgo acted out of compassion for every form of life and give food to the famine.


Why judge the action of our brother Virgo?

He didn't comit any offence and did not breaked any precet. So actually why condem his action? This do not fit with sila and good behaviour.

Kind regards.


Because we're struggling for right understanding, not for foolish compassion under all circumstances.


If sparing a less evolved insect like a tick is making dozens of higher evolved human beings ill, if that is what you want to do, fine, but where has compassion for the human beings gone?

Higher evolved and more in number?

Perhaps over feeling saintly the whole picture is lost?


Things need to be seen in context, and that is what Buddhists always attempt to do.
Last edited by Annapurna on Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Goedert » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:59 am

tiltbillings wrote:And as usual you just do not answer the question put to you. So, are you willing to be a host for a parasite extracted from someone so that the parasite does not die?


No friend. It is not necessary doing so, you can put them in nature. They can walk.

tiltbillings wrote:The sutta is about one's own life, but I asked you about saving another person life about to be needlessly taken, but could save it, but you have to kill the serial killer, and if you do not kill the serial killer he kill the victim in front of you, escapes to kill some more. You seem to be saying, let the person die, let the serial killer continue to kill.


As always your are avoiding the statements quoted. Read, it is plain english:

Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

— MN 21

The above selected statement is pretty easy to understand. In a Buddhist point of view Killing is never good, no metter how situation.

We have to put this in mind.

Do you tilt, have any argument agaist what the Buddha said about not killing and holding the precets?
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby alan » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:03 am

I understand those who hold onto the view that all killing is bad. But it is just a view.
Making your whole philosophy of life around this just does not seem reasonable.
There are ethical components of the path, true. But that is not the whole story.
In fact I'd argue that bugs, spiders, and whatever crawling, buzzing, biting things are not worthy of attention, from a moral sense. If some of those cause unnecessary harm, then go ahead and get rid of them.
alan
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:10 am

Oleksandr wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And so the tick remains alive, you put out side somewhere and it infects another human being who is not as smart as we Buddhists are about not going into the forest, and as happens with deer ticks he does not notice that he has been bitten and get Lyme's disease from the tick you saved and released and now he is faced with what can be a crippling and life threatening disease thanks to your compassion and fear of bad kamma.


Maybe. Or maybe not.

Don't you think that according to Theravada killing is always unskillful?
I am not going to justify in terms of the Buddha's teachings killing a deer tick which is not bigger than this period at the end of this sentence. I tend to think my life has a bit more value, and I would see no value in putting something like this back into the environment to possibly infect another human or another animal of any sort. If you are not going to kill a deer tick, you might as well let any number of the disease carrying and causing insects and bacteria live as well.

The thing is your life is perdicated upon death. Death of disease vectors so we no longer get the plague malaria or any number of other diseases, death of animals to make way for human living space and farming, or for human clothing and food. Death of animals and humans for the natuarl resources we use and cannot live without, etc, etc, etc.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Mawkish1983 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:13 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Mawkish1983 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Yeah. Some people here would not get a passing grade [in a first year philosophy course].
But I'd try my best, that's all I could do.
Kill the parasite or let it kill the victim?
Kill the parasite.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, doesn't mean I agree with killing in self protection or for the protection of others, doesn't mean I would justify it or believe my actions to by justified. Same for the serial killer. If asked what I would actually do, yes, I'd kill the serial killer. All things considered, looking at the much wider picture, I'd kill the tick, I'd kill the serial killer, I'd kill to protect the lives of others. BUT, I don't believe killing is ever right, I'd feel remorse inside, I'd feel regret. I wouldn't be thinking "I have killed for the greater good". I don't think I'm making much sense, but as I say I'm a coward and I contradict myself a lot.

I don't know where the line would be drawn with this issue. If the USA invades Iran, killing Iranian soldiers, in a pre-emptive effort to "kill in self defense", is that right? Is it a different situation or just an extrapolation of the same situation? I am anti-war, and I don't think I could support such an action, but isn't it just the same as the serial-killer example, which itself is the same as the tick example?

After a lot of head-scratching and brow-furrowing, I have to answer I simply don't know. I don't think killing is justified and yet I would see myself doing it.

So, yeah, I'd fail the first-year philosophy course.
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:17 am

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And as usual you just do not answer the question put to you. So, are you willing to be a host for a parasite extracted from someone so that the parasite does not die?


No friend. It is not necessary doing so, you can put them in nature. They can walk.
Ticks can walk. So you put a tick back into nature so that it may very well infect someone else. No compassion for the other person whatsoever. But parasitical worms cannot walk. They need to be inside some living creature. Are you going to volunteer for that so that the parasitical worm causing blindness can live?

tiltbillings wrote:The sutta is about one's own life, but I asked you about saving another person life about to be needlessly taken, but could save it, but you have to kill the serial killer, and if you do not kill the serial killer he kill the victim in front of you, escapes to kill some more. You seem to be saying, let the person die, let the serial killer continue to kill.


As always your are avoiding the statements quoted. Read, it is plain english:

Killing is never skillful.
Yes, and you have, indirectly, killed by allowing another person - who you could have stopped - to kill an innocent, and allowing this killer to escape to kill some more. You are a killer. Wow, who knew.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:21 am

Mawkish1983 wrote:

Doesn't mean I have to like it,
No one is asking you to like it, but the reality of life sometimes is very hard. And yes, where do you draw the line is not an easy question, but it better to wrestle with these questions than to lock one's self into an unthinking, rigid certitude that can miss the real play of compassion as it unfolds in life's very gray and difficult areas.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Goedert » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:24 am

Done with this discussing, a first stage arya would never break the precepts, he trys to be pure. Layman kills.

This is how Buddha teached the attittude toward living creatures:

Ahina Sutta: By a Snake

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time in Savatthi a certain monk had died after having been bitten by a snake. Then a large number of monks went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, "Lord, just now in Savatthi a certain monk died after having been bitten by a snake."

"Then it's certain, monks, that that monk didn't suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake. Which four? The Virupakkha royal snake lineage,[1] the Erapatha royal snake lineage, the Chabyaputta royal snake lineage, the Dark Gotamaka royal snake lineage. It's certain that that monk didn't suffuse these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake. I allow you, monks, to suffuse these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will for the sake of self-protection, self-guarding, self-preservation."

I have good will for the Virupakkhas,
good will for the Erapathas,
good will for the Chabyaputtas,
good will for the Dark Gotamakas.

I have good will for footless beings,
good will for two-footed beings,
good will for four-footed beings,
good will for many-footed beings.

May footless beings do me no harm.
May two-footed beings do me no harm.
May four-footed beings do me no harm.
May many-footed beings do me no harm.

May all creatures,
all breathing things,
all beings
— each & every one —
meet with good fortune.
May none of them come to any evil.

Limitless is the Buddha,
limitless the Dhamma,
limitless the Sangha.
There is a limit to creeping things:
snakes, scorpions, centipedes,
spiders, lizards, & rats.
I have made this safeguard,
I have made this protection.
May the beings depart.
I pay homage
to the Blessed One,
homage
to the seven
rightly self-awakened ones.[2]

Notes

1.The Virupakkhas are the chiefs of the nagas, associated with the western quarter (see DN 20). The other royal lineages of snakes are nowhere else mentioned in the Pali canon. The commentary to this discourse does not identify them.
2.The seven most recent Buddhas, including "our" Buddha, are mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama. It's noteworthy that the concept of the seven Buddhas is associated with protective charms. For example, the heart of the charm given in DN 32 is this:
Homage to Vipassi, possessed of vision & splendor.
Homage to Sikhi, sympathetic to all beings.
Homage to Vessabhu, cleansed, austere.
Homage to Kakusandha, crusher of Mara's host.
Homage to Konagamana, the Brahman who lived
the life perfected.
Homage to Kassapa, entirely released.
Homage to Angirasa [Gotama],
splendid son of the Sakyans,
who taught this Dhamma:
the dispelling of all stress & pain.
Those unbound in the world,
who have seen things as they are,
great ones of gentle speech,
thoroughly mature,
even they pay homage to Gotama,
the benefit of human & heavenly beings,
consummate in knowledge & conduct,
the great one, thoroughly mature.
We revere the Buddha Gotama,
consummate in knowledge & conduct.


This is all.

:anjali:
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:32 am

Goedert wrote:Done with this discussing, a first stage arya would never break the precepts, he trys to be pure.
Are you making a claim about yourself here?

Layman kills.
Killing sometimes is a necessity of life, and sometimes it is far more compassionate than not.

But your refusal to answer the questions is, well, your refusal to answer the questions. A lot of sidestepping, unless you are claiming to be an ariya.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Goedert » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:37 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote:Done with this discussing, a first stage arya would never break the precepts, he trys to be pure.
Are you making a claim about yourself here?

Layman kills.
Killing sometimes is a necessity of life, and sometimes it is far more compassionate than not.

But your refusal to answer the questions is, well, your refusal to answer the questions. A lot of sidestepping, unless you are claiming to be an ariya.


Keeping The Precepts - Mahasi Sayadaw

Noble Ones who have attained the first stage of sainthood, the ariyas, adore the five precepts. They do not want to break them; they are always anxious not to break the sila. They observe the precepts not because they are afraid that others would censure them, but because they want to keep their minds in purity, and purity of the mind can be achieved only by observance of the five precepts. Not only during this life, but in all future existences they do not want to fail in keeping the precepts. They may not know that they have become stream-enterers (sotapanna) in their previous existence, but they do know that they must observe the five precepts fully and with no default.

— Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Annapurna » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:39 am

Oleksandr wrote:First, I think Buddhists shouldn't go to forest when ticks are there to avoid such situations :)

Second, may be it is possible to ask a doctor to remove a tick with pincers without killing him?

Third, there is an option to remove him by cutting out a part of your skin, where he is. Painful, but the tick will remain alive.


First, I think Buddhists shouldn't go to forest when ticks are there to avoid such situations :)


Come on!

Who told the ticks to stay in the forest?

They wait in gardens, on hiking routes, along country roads, everywhere, except concrete cities perhaps.

I get all my ticks while working in the garden!

And what's up with those Buddhists who work outdoors, fell trees, and stuff?
Second, may be it is possible to ask a doctor to remove a tick with pincers without killing him?


Sure, but it would cost me 10 Euros, so I use my own fingers and my own pincers...

But it's not a bad idea. :smile:

Third, there is an option to remove him by cutting out a part of your skin, where he is. Painful, but the tick will remain alive.



I'd have pieces of skin missing and ugly scars allover my body. And then where should I put it? Drive to a forest, gently place it on the ground, while the next one is already crawling up my leg and while the blood is seeping through the bandaid?
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:40 am

Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19765
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby Goedert » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:03 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.


Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby PeterB » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:14 am

Oleksandr wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And so the tick remains alive, you put out side somewhere and it infects another human being who is not as smart as we Buddhists are about not going into the forest, and as happens with deer ticks he does not notice that he has been bitten and get Lyme's disease from the tick you saved and released and now he is faced with what can be a crippling and life threatening disease thanks to your compassion and fear of bad kamma.


Maybe. Or maybe not.

Don't you think that according to Theravada killing is always unskillful?

No. I know that question was not addressed to me. In the real world sometimes all we have is a range of options in a situation we would not choose to be in. This is one such. I try to avoid killing, but that is not an absolute position. Sometimes and this is one..we actually have to act like responsible adults and take the lesser of two evils. ( I will resist the temptation of work up a joke about the lesser of two weevils ) And the lesser of two evils in this case is preventing yourself and others from developing Lyme Disease.. Human beings are far more important than insects. Which does not give human being carte blanche to squish bugs, but it does mean that they should take preventive steps when faced with disease vectors. I would not hesitate to take any measure to remove a tick from myself or any other creature. neither would I hesitate to take part in any spraying or other campaign to kill ticks that are near human habitation. All kamma is mixed. I think the intention in preventing Lyme disease is more positive than the result of killing them.
I think to defend the rights of insects to feed off us or our families or pets is an absolute travesty of Buddhadhamma. Its a denial of reality and it is to advocate an opting out of real responsible adult behaviour.
I cannot help concluding that there is a great deal of fear of personal anger here. i have written before of the fact that some of the most angry patients I meet are vegetarians who not so much animal lovers as very angry people whose own anger scares them..and who become angry at the very idea..I think that there is a similar issue here.
I cannot imagine for one moment the Ajahns at Chithurst advocating a passive attitude towards tick bites.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3903
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: When Buddhists get a tick....

Postby PeterB » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:16 am

Goedert wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Goedert wrote: Responding your question.

Yes anyone can kill, Lay Buddhist kill. Ariyans do not kill.

Reffering to your ad hominem.
I'm nothing.
No ad hom here. You simply seem to imply that you are an ariya. And I am asking you directly, are you a sotapanna (or more)? A simple yes or no will do.


Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

Tilts question was not an ad hom. It was a simple question.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3903
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ethical Conduct

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests