Cittasanto wrote:out of interest when would be buying and selling anything not be demand driven, or was there a time when supply was not tried to meet the demand, and great losses were the norm in revenue due to underselling or understocked?
What I mean to say is that the complex economy of today's world, in which consumer demand at supply points influences greater production on a mass scale through factories and industrialized farming, responds to our actions far differently than the economy of the Buddha's time.
except those prohibitions are not for lay people, and designed for alms mendicants (due to a criticism of accepting food offered by a former nigantha supporting general sila (?name)) not those who could decide what to have when they wanted, i.e., lay people.
so not very effective as an argument against lay people eating meat.
Are you implying that somehow these are not good guidelines for making responsible, compassionate choices? It seems to me that they provide a wonderful framework for monks and laypeople as well.
the only actual argument that could be supported within Buddhism is for a flexitarian type diet. eating vegetarian food when of your own design (bought/sought and made oneself) and eating meat when the food is offered such as as a guest at someone's home, so you are not inconveniencing them with special dietary needs not medically needed. this neither adopts the monastic rules nor goes against wrong livelihood; but then again eating a meat based diet does not specifically go against wrong livelihood as you are not making your living through that means, although if one is basing their argument on ahimsa - harmlessness (put down the stick and sword) the supply and demand argument is a valid one to make so long as it doesn't dictate onto others which would render the effacement regarding views (only this is correct) useless.
You're right that it is wrong to accuse others or criticize those who eat meat, and I agree that accepting meat in certain situations is the best approach. I'm simply arguing that the most pure expression of the Buddha's teachings would imply at least a passive preference for non-flesh foods.