the great vegetarian debate

[Cittasanto]

That there is killing involved in the production of a vegetarian diet is really just an irrelevance.

so vegetarians can have it both ways?

tilts point was facetious. It really isn't worth trying to uphold.

so you say, but that doesn't mean it is any less relevant that trying to place kammic blame on someone for eating meat when they are only utilising what is available.

[Mr Man]

so you say, but that doesn't mean it is any less relevant that trying to place kammic blame on someone for eating meat when they are only utilising what is available.

Cittasanto, I don't think I have been guilty of trying to place "karmic blame" - reminds me of your "accusing people of murder" comment.

For most of us "eating meat" or "not" is a choice we make it is not just a case of "utilizing what is available". "Utilizing what is available" sounds like doublespeak to me.

[Cittasanto]

so you say, but that doesn't mean it is any less relevant that trying to place kammic blame on someone for eating meat when they are only utilising what is available.

Cittasanto, I don't think I have been guilty of trying to palce "karmic blame" - reminds me of your "accusing people of murder" comment.

For most of us "eating meat" or "not" is a choice we make it is not just a case of "utilizing what is available". "Utilizing what is available" sounds like doublespeak to me.

it is single speech. but are things often used without a decision process?
but in regard to eating that decision process does not go as far as whether or not to take a life.

[Mr Man]

but in regard to eating that decision process does not go as far as whether or not to take a life.

And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

[Cittasanto]

but in regard to eating that decision process does not go as far as whether or not to take a life.

And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

[Mr Man]

but in regard to eating that decision process does not go as far as whether or not to take a life.

And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life".

It seems to me like you are just trying to distort everything that is said.

[Cittasanto]

And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life".

It seems to me like you are just trying to distort everything that is said.

not in the slightest, if something is inextricably interlinked it is difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie from that which it is joined.

[Mr Man]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

[daverupa]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

[Mr Man]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-

[daverupa]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die).
-

Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.

[Mr Man]

Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.

A subtext? How bizarre. No, there is no subtext.

[Cittasanto]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

[Mr Man]

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.

[Cittasanto]

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.

[Mr Man]

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.

Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption

you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

I'm not putting the blame on anybody.

[Alex123]

Such things as cannibalism are told to exist even today (there are many stories from Thailand for example), the sacrify of human decay just about 150 years in south east asia as I read in a scholar history book.

Did you know that Christians have Holy Communion (Eucharist) when they eat bread which signifies Jesus's flesh and drink wine which symbolizes Jesus's blood?
This is symbolic cannibalism! And there are about 2.1 Billion Christians...

There is this belief in some tribes that if one eats the heart of brave warrior, one will become brave.

In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process,[26] or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.[27] Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.[27] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Reasons

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ideal food for building the body, is another body because it has all the right proportions of all amino-acids. But of course this shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.


Of course I am against cannibalism.

[DAWN]

This is symbolic cannibalism!

Now i understand why peoples have animal behavour

[Cittasanto]

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.

Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption

yet this isn't the only source of meat people can have access to.meat from a natural death is quite prized is Cambodia and other places. I have eaten meat that the animal wasn't killed before without travelling.

you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

I'm not putting the blame on anybody.

OK, although that is a consequence of not seperating the process to where things happen and linking things too closely.

[Mr Man]

I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".