I am really torn on this; don't kill me because it's veg. related *ducks and runs*

Jeffrey

In some of the differences between men and women such as strength the variation between the sexes is less than the variation between individuals. I suspect the variation between meatheads and mr/mrs potato heads is smaller than the variation in individual strength.

Citta

Can I be a Mr Meat AND Potato head Jeffrey ? Yumsters.

zenff

Citta said:

Yes. Just as my ancestors have for a million years. ( hunted or killed ). Its what we do. It suits me. I like it. Frankly its doing the animals a favour.

We are 7 billion people now. That’s too many people to be hunters/gatherers.
What @seeker242 is pointing at is that intensive livestock farming has its limits too. At some point the cumbersome and wasteful way of getting our proteins from meat is something the planet cannot sustain.

Eating meat made sense for hunters/gatherers and for communities of extensive farmers. At some point it just got luxury and now we may reach the point that this luxury is something we can no longer afford.
A vegetarian diet at that point will be common sense; not coming from a moral point of view but just because of the rational use of scarce recourses.


The moral point is worth considering though. Most of us are in the luxurious position that we can choose between a complete and healthy diet which doesn’t require killing animals and one that includes the killing. That’s a different position than having to choose between killing and starving.

Buddhist ethics should be able to adapt to new situations. Societies change and so we must face new situations.

My vote says that Buddhists should have respect for life and adopt a vegetarian diet if they can.

Citta

I am absolutely serious when I say that we only buy meat from people with respect for life.
Respect includes acknowledging that we are all part of the web of life and death..

seeker242

vinlyn said:

And what are your qualifications?

Any background in hydrology, for example?

I have no qualifications! That is why I defer to actual scientists on the matter. Like the one's who wrote the paper I posted about.

You know seeker, by this time I would think you would notice that virtually everyone on our forum has one view or the other. Almost no one is on the fence. So you are preaching for naught.

I'm curious as to how you can speak for everyone who comes to read these forums? Do you have special powers of ESP or something?

Citta said:

There is evidence that seeker242's tactics are completely counter-productive because they polarise people.
I have seen examples where posters who are sympathetic to the veggie cause end up distancing themselves from his presentation of that cause.
Its just nag nag nag.
And we all learn to turn off from that we are about 5. The eyes glaze over. The mind moves into neutral.

Where is this evidence? Is it in a peer-reviewed sociology journal somewhere? No, It's your uneducated opinion. But, of course, you are entitled to your uneducated opinion. Your random, unsolicited anti-vegetarian comments are not just nag, nag, nag? Of course they are... If you don't like nagging, you should stop doing it yourself.

vinlyn

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

oceancaldera207

>

Yes. Just as my ancestors have for a million years. ( hunted or killed ). Its what we do. It suits me. I like it. Frankly its doing the animals a favour.

huh. Well go figure.
How do you feel about violence in general.?  how about law enforcement?.

zenff

Citta said:

I am absolutely serious when I say that we only buy meat from people with respect for life.
Respect includes acknowledging that we are all part of the web of life and death..

I’m not saying that the wolf shall dwell with the lamb. And I see your point. Killing is an integral part of life. It’s something worth acknowledging.

seeker242

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

Well, then you all should stop attacking people when they speak favorably of vegetarianism or try to engage in a reasonable discussion. Wasn't it you that told me to "get over myself"? Yea...I think it was...Obviously, everyone is already going to make their own decision on the matter to begin with.

zenff

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

I am in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision on each and every matter.

vinlyn

zenff said:

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

I am in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision on each and every matter.

Exactly.

Citta

zenff said:

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

I am in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision on each and every matter.

Yup. Including lunch.

vinlyn

seeker242 said:

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

Well, then you all should stop attacking people when they speak favorably of vegetarianism or try to engage in a reasonable discussion. Wasn't it you that told me to "get over myself"? Yea...I think it was...Obviously, everyone is already going to make their own decision on the matter to begin with.

Do not expect to remain unchallenged on almost any topic in this forum.

oceancaldera207

sigh*. In a savage world, in a violent city, I ate 1serving fage greek yogurt, 1tbs chia, 1tbs ground flax, a few slivered almonds, a few cashews ground up a bit, and 1/4 cup love grown cocoa goodness granola. Feel pretty good, think I'll go for a jog.
See you guys later.

karasti

I lied. I couldn't resist adding to @MaryAnne's comment. She is right, of course. Yes, agriculture as it exists now uses too many resources to be sustainable. But that is largely because of how much is wasted. Not purchased and thrown out from stores, restaurants, and so on. Food that is perfectly good condition to eat. The western world, on average, throws out 50% (50%!!!) of edible food available. The US alone could feed the entire impoverished world with the food that they throw out every year. This does not even include the food that is throw away once it goes home with the consumer. This is food that never even makes it home.

In addition, the many, many tons of waste that goes into the landfills (which could still be used to feed people, or at worst be used for compost) contributes to greenhouse gasses and the continued warming of the planet which just keeps the cycle of problems of feeding everyone going round and round.

Did you notice that in the article you posted @seeker242 it also said this:
Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit.

Requiring the entire planet to go veggie isn't the only option. Not only that but it seems like the least likely to happen.

And I found this. I'd like to read the whole study for context but have so far only been able to find the abstract.
According to the Carnegie Mellon report, while meat farming is often targeted as an energy- and carbon-intensive sector, it shows up lower on the list in terms of water use per dollar of economic output than fruit and vegetable farming.
While fruit and vegetable agriculture uses more water than meat production, it’s not without its own water sins. According to a study by the UNESCO Institute for Water Education, conducted between 1996 and 2005, “29 percent of the total water footprint of the agricultural sector in the world is related to the production of animal products.” One-third of that water is used to raise beef cattle.

That means 81% of the water used in agricultural is not related to meat production. No doubt it is higher in the US, but on global scale that isn't necessarily the case.

MaryAnne

seeker242 said:

MaryAnne said:

First of all, there is no 'food shortage' globally. There is a food distribution problem, not a shortage. We in the US throw away more food in one year than some families consume in 3 years in other parts of the world. It's a matter of waste and availability- not shortages.

If you want to argue with the worlds leading water scientists, of course you are free to do that. However, I really don't think you have the knowledge, expertise or education to do so. Although, you can try if you want I guess... You should send them an email explaining to them how they are just wrong. I'm sure they will give serious consideration to your uneducated opinion on the matter.

How am I arguing with the leading scientists of the world?
I got most of my comment/s right from the article YOU cited as one to prove your POV, that explains the other reasons for world wide alarm regarding fresh water, as well as other solutions for that problem. You, however, chose to ignore that and instead question my intelligence. Nice.

And your snark and sarcasm was also uncalled for. I didn't say anything about you - personally - nor about your vegetarianism.

As others have pointed out, until you stop seeing others' disagreement or unwillingness to choose vegetarianism for their own lifestyle as 'an attack' on yours, you will always view yourself as being victimized by other forum members here -- even when that is not the intention for their counter views....
You may continue to feel superior to us "slaughtering" meat-eaters, good for you- whatever makes you happy.

seeker242

vinlyn said:

Do not expect to remain unchallenged on almost any topic in this forum.

Good advice! But at the same time, don't be surprised when someone is able to rebut a challenge in a reasonable manner. This happening is not a license for personal attacks and insults. The proper and reasonable way to challenge is to challenge the argument, not the person making it.

Citta said:

zenff said:

vinlyn said:

Actually, Citta and I are not against vegetarianism. We are in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision about that matter.

I am in favor of each Buddhist making his or her own decision on each and every matter.

Yup. Including lunch.

If you think about it. All this talk about making personal choices is essentially irrelevant. Since when do people not make their own choices to begin with? Since never. Unless they are a child or mentally disabled or something like that.

MaryAnne said:

seeker242 said:

MaryAnne said:

First of all, there is no 'food shortage' globally. There is a food distribution problem, not a shortage. We in the US throw away more food in one year than some families consume in 3 years in other parts of the world. It's a matter of waste and availability- not shortages.

If you want to argue with the worlds leading water scientists, of course you are free to do that. However, I really don't think you have the knowledge, expertise or education to do so. Although, you can try if you want I guess... You should send them an email explaining to them how they are just wrong. I'm sure they will give serious consideration to your uneducated opinion on the matter.

How am I arguing with the leading scientists of the world?

From the actual article:

""There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations,"

Are you saying you agree with that? It appears from your post that you do not agree with that. So which is it?

I got most of my comment/s right from the article YOU cited as one to prove your POV, that explains the other reasons for world wide alarm regarding fresh water, as well as other solutions for that problem.

And why do you chose to ignore the most significant factor regarding the unsustainable usage of water?

You, however, chose to ignore that and instead question my intelligence.

False. I questioned your training, expertise and education in water sciences. Compared to professional water scientists, you don't have any. It has nothing to do with intelligence. You did not get most of your comments from the article, you simply stated your uneducated opinions. And at the same time, you chose to ignore the most significant contributing factor, animal agriculture, and focus on other less significant factors only. Why is that? Of course the answer is to find a number of ways to reduce consumption. You fail to realize that reducing the unsustainable use in animal agriculture is one of the most significant ways to do that.

And your snark and sarcasm was also uncalled for. I didn't say anything about you - personally - nor about your vegetarianism.

Your snark is also uncalled for. Do you not realize that nearly all of your comments in these vegetarian threads are completely full of snark?

You said:

You really think clearing every square inch of "viable" acreage available on this planet to plant veggies and fruits is the best plan we've got?
And the animals and wildlife already here and thriving in their own diverse natural environments? What about them? Just let them die off and we can rest easy because we don't EAT them anymore? Really??

You don't think this is snarky? Really?? You are implying that I argue that we should let all the animal die? Really??? Come on now, that is completely ridiculous!

As others have pointed out, until you stop seeing others' disagreement or unwillingness to choose vegetarianism for their own lifestyle as 'an attack' on yours, you will always view yourself as being victimized by other forum members here

This is not the case. You are mistaken again. I am attacked because no one can present a reasonable counter argument to the points I make. And when people can not present a reasonable counter argument, they have no other choice to resort to attacking me, instead of the argument, because they don't know what to else to say. It's called "ad hominem" argumentation, it's quite common and it's not a reasonable way to discuss any issue.

-- even when that is not the intention for their counter views....
You may continue to feel superior to us "slaughtering" meat-eaters, good for you- whatever makes you happy.

The snark bucket is overflowing! As it always is with your comments...

MaryAnne

^ whatever. ::: rolls eyes::: Your posts have been totally obnoxious. And it's not my fault you chose to read mine, (and others) in the same tone.

seeker242

MaryAnne said:

Your posts have been totally obnoxious.

As if yours are not? Give me a break. ::: rolls eyes::: Nope, rolling eyes is definitely not obnoxious...Really??

Bunks

A man far wiser than I once said "What comes out of your mouth is more important than what goes into it"

karasti

Most of the research I have done (which is also lead by experts, 1200 of them) the majority of them do not even put "change world diet" on the list of possible viable suggestions to solving the water problem. Education and water conservation, fair and realistic water pricing, desalination, and recycling of waste water (for mining and agriculture) are the top solutions offered as most viable and most likely to happen. Not only does it not suddenly force an entire planet to adopt new diet changes, but it puts money into the economy in developing the technologies. They exist already. The richest mining companies have their own desalination plants to allow them to continue to operate without depleting the fresh water of the areas they mine in (I've done a ton of researching on that issue because of the mining coming to my area and our large supply of the world's fresh water supply in one small area). So, the technology exists we just have not made good use of it.

Nat Geo also has been running a water special for a couple off years now with a ton of information and suggestions. They have a neat water usage quiz and it said something like the average American eats 7 servings of beef, 7 servings of chicken, 6 servings of pork each week. I found that pretty interesting, that's a WHOLE lot of meat. Simply decreasing it would have a fairly large impact, whether people went vegetarian or not.

vinlyn

Perhaps, seeker, what you might consider is authoring a blog -- an opportunity to state your opinion without any feedback.

Arthurbodhi

karasti said:

Most of the research I have done (which is also lead by experts, 1200 of them) the majority of them do not even put "change world diet" on the list of possible viable suggestions to solving the water problem.

Maybe not exactly to solving water problem, but indeed "experts" had suggested change world diet to a meat and dairy free one for fight hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

seeker242

vinlyn said:

Perhaps, seeker, what you might consider is authoring a blog -- an opportunity to state your opinion without any feedback.

That's a good idea. Or, people could just engage in a reasonable discussion. That's a good idea too. Asking people if they never use any electricity, well, that not exactly reasonable.

vinlyn

Seeker242, I want you to understand something. You don't think some of my statements surrounding this general issue are reasonable. Okay. I accept that.

But you need to understand that several of us feel the same way about a number of your statements.

Nowhere in this discussion have I stated that people should not be vegetarians. It's fine to be a vegetarian. But to say that it's not allowed in Buddhism is to ignore the behavior of millions of Buddhists, including Buddhist monks and Buddhist leaders. And so when you or other bring up such matters, I am going to respond. And I don't mind a bit if you respond in turn. No problem.

seeker242

vinlyn said:

Seeker242, I want you to understand something. You don't think some of my statements surrounding this general issue are reasonable. Okay. I accept that.

But you need to understand that several of us feel the same way about a number of your statements.

Nowhere in this discussion have I stated that people should not be vegetarians. It's fine to be a vegetarian. But to say that it's not allowed in Buddhism is to ignore the behavior of millions of Buddhists, including Buddhist monks and Buddhist leaders. And so when you or other bring up such matters, I am going to respond. And I don't mind a bit if you respond in turn. No problem.

That is fine. I have no problem with people responding to my comments and I am fine with people disagreeing with me in a reasonable manner. I am fine with you responding to that as long are you are not telling me to "get over myself" simply because I engage in the discussion and post an article or something. I have never called anyone a murderer because they eat meat. However, when people accuse me of saying that when I have never said that, this is what I have a problem with because that is not reasonable. It's actually completely ridiculous! The veg threads in the past were not closed because people were engaged in a reasonable discussion. There is a reason why the OP put a disclaimer in the title "don't kill me because it's veg. related *ducks and runs*". There would never be any need to "duck and run" if people engage in a civil discussion.

MaryAnne

IMO, the only one who has not been responding to this discussion in a "reasonable" manner is you, @seeker242.

But I will also concede that "reasonable" is a subjective description, and my perceptions about your being reasonable (or not) might not match yours.
Apparently your idea of 'reasonable' certainly doesn't match mine, because I don't think it's reasonable to play victim and claim [you are] being "attacked" when no one here has done such a thing.
What you don't seem to like is your Opinion attacked or countered.
Well, that's what debates and discussions are usually about....
Stop taking it personally, and stop making your assertions (about others) personal and maybe discussions can remain 'reasonable'...

seeker242

MaryAnne said:

IMO, the only one who has not been responding to this discussion in a "reasonable" manner is you, @seeker242.

But I will also concede that "reasonable" is a subjective description, and my perceptions about your being reasonable (or not) might not match yours.
Apparently your idea of 'reasonable' certainly doesn't match mine, because I don't think it's reasonable to play victim and claim [you are] being "attacked" when no one here has done such a thing.

Sorry but that's just bullshit. You said and I quote "You may continue to feel superior to us "slaughtering" meat-eaters, good for you- whatever makes you happy."

The idea that this is not a personal attack, it's just plain nonsense! You really think comments like "get over yourself" and "all you do is nag nag nag" are not personal attacks? Pardon my french, but that is fucking bullshit! It's also not reasonable.

Apparently your idea of 'reasonable' certainly doesn't match mine, because I don't think it's reasonable to play victim and claim [you are] being "attacked" when no one here has done such a thing.

No, it doesn't because you don't actually know what reasonable means. You fail to realize that pointing out an "ad hominum" statement as one, is not "playing victim". It is simply pointing out the fact that it does not address my statements but addresses me personally. This is, by definition, unreasonable. You don't know what a strawman is. You don't know what a red herring is. You don't know that ad hominum is but you use all of them constantly without even realizing it. But you don't like when I point out the unreasonable nature of your statements so you try to accuse me of "playing victim". Pardon my french, but this is also a load of bullshit. Really!


Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position

You do this constantly...

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

You also do this constantly...

Description of Ad Hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

You do this also but I would say not as much as the others. However, some of the other people just love this one!

All of these things appear in every single vegetarian thread that comes up here. None of the above is reasonable. It's bullshit.

Jeffrey

Wouldn't this discussion be much more fruitful if we started talking about rebirth? I'm sure we could get somewhere. ::sarcasm::

Carry on

Linc

Oh dear.