the great vegetarian debate

[seeker242]

I think technically, vegetarianism is a "dietary preference" according to the dictionary. But when people say it's not just a dietary preference, what I think they are trying to say is that it's about much more than just "my personal preferences". Or, it's not about me and it's not for me. It's not about what I want or don't want. It's not a self centered preference about "my food". Something like that I think.

[lyndon taylor]

my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.

[waterchan]

my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.

In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

[chownah]

my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.

In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.

thanks for the clarification; guess I am too used to hearing that vegetarians supposedly shun other people, so thought it was that.

I know; and is it not a shame?

I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!

I am a vegetarian, but refuse to be divisive.



(* It could have been in the 'alcohol in cooking' thread....)

[Spiny Norman]

I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!

In my experience vegetarians like both people and animals.

[Mkoll]

It's kinda OT but it's wise to shun certain people. The people you're around influence you. The Buddha said fellowship with fools is painful and friendship with the wise is the heart of the holy life. He was pretty clear about shunning fools.

Nothing to do with vegetarianism so

[beeblebrox]

In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah

I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

[Ron-The-Elder]

or being a zoo-o-phile.

I hope that is some kind of joke?

Hi, Dave. Not a joke. Most plants like light, are attracted to light, literally need light, because that is where they get the photon energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes, such as photosynthesis. They are therefore called "photo-philes".


Carnivores cannot manufacture their own nutrients as can plants, and as a result "are attracted dietarily to animals", usually herbivores, lower order carnivores, carion, and logically from a dietary perspective can properly be called zoo-o-philes, because that is how they prefer to gather their nutrients, by eating animals to get the energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes.

Herbivores are animals that prefer plants and can logically, therefore, be labled as "herb-o-philes". Lovers of plants. People, who love plants for their esthetics, can also be called herb-o-philes, but this has nothing to do with dietary preferences. Vegetarians are in the dietary sense herb-o-philes. In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.

Omnivores (pigs , many fish, dogs and bears,like us humans and other higher order primates for example) are attracted dietarily to both plant and animal forms of nutrients, and can use either effectively to thrive. It seems to me that they (we humans) are the only creatures in samsara, which have a true choice, as the term "phile" is the case of nutrient preference and energy gathering equals an attachment. The rest is dictated by nutrient type availability. In the tundra and Arctic Biomes, there is little plant-life availability. So, to survive, we may have to rip out the throat of a baby seal, or penguin, unless we can find a frozen carcas and have the means to thaw it out.

All of us have a need to consume life in order to live. It seems only omnivores truly have a choice as to what they consume given that both forms of nutrients are present from which to choose.

Hope this clears thing up!

[chownah]

In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah

I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
chownah

[DNS]

In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.

Hope this clears thing up!

Okay, if you are using that definition. When I saw the term it sounded like something else, so looked it up to be certain and sure enough, this came up:

zoophilia (ˌzəʊəˈfɪlɪə)

— n
a morbid condition in which a person has a sexual attraction to animals; bestiality

One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.

[waterchan]

One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.

Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?

[DNS]

Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?

Yes, I think so, the higher altruistic, metta, karuna, and mudita love.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi, Dave.

Yes. There are those folks that have a sexual interest in animals, also called zoophiles , but the variety of folks that I am referencing are "non-sexual zoophiles":

Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.

Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.

source: http://www.reference.com/browse/Zoophilia

What I was trying to frame with the term was the concept of dietary preference or nutritional need due to biological disposition.

My apologies for any lexical ambiguity.

[waterchan]

Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?

Yes, I think so, the higher altruistic, metta, karuna, and mudita love.

Okay, just that to me it sounded like you were saying that PETA peeps have no love for animals because they don't keep pets.