Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why Veganism/Vegetarianism Is Always An Aspiration That Cannot Be Fully Realised.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm a fan of Linda McCartney's sausages... lightly done in the oven, then finished off/re-heated in a lush onion gravy (did I mention I make a mean gravy??
. )
Whenever I serve everyone their meat, and come back from the kitchen with my vegetarian course, no-one (my Mum is probably the worst) fails to comment on how I am depleting my health, or have you talked it over with your physician, or are you sure this is healthy. Or husband adding "When we met you weren't vegetarian: you have changed."
I can relate to that. Comments range from straight up rude (usually from selective friends) to simple concern (from my mother/grandmother/aunts). I'm not bothered by the concern, but when people are pushy or rubbing it in my face how delicious something I cannot have is, I tend to just point out that eating said item would likely give me days of digestional discomfort which makes it significantly less appetizing. If they persist in criticism of my choices, I might discuss what I find so abhorrent about the meat industry's treatment of animals, which is why I make the choice I do. Most meat-eaters will usually agree that even if they don't want to stop eating meat because of it, our current standards for the meat industry are pretty woefully lacking.
Personally, I'm not against people eating meat, I just feel terrible supporting such suffering. I whole-heartedly support people buying organic/free range but I know it's a hard and expensive commitment unless you happen to live in rural areas where someone usually knows someone with a local farm and humane standards. Also, if you live in a city with a Muslim population, halal meat is a great choice as well, since in order to be considered "halal" they must have humane treatment of the animals and a clean kill. Oddly enough, I also support people hunting their own game, so long as they treat the animals with respect and are not doing it purely for sport... but I realize that this opinion is probably not popular. I do sometimes wonder how different my own opinions are from other Buddhist vegetarians though.
>
"Yes darling, and you were thinner and had more hair, but you don't hear me complaining....
Mom, my physician's vegetarian. Now, will there be anything else, or can I enjoy my lunch in peace, for a change?"
Someday I want to blurt out "When I choose to do something different than you choose, it is NOT a strategy to prove you wrong."
Wrong speech is so seductive . . .
AS long as we're on the subject to tolerance in diet, lets say I invite you over for dinner. I don't know you're a vegetarian. You don't know that I'm unaware.
What's the play?
@chaz I usually tell/remind people and ask if they want me to bring a vegetarian dish. In the event that I can't discuss it beforehand, I usually just eat before in case I can't eat much at the dinner. As a vegetarian, you learn to be pretty cautious of these situations.
If you are invited to dinner let them know you are vegetarian and offer to bring your own food or to just eat the side dishes such as potato or salad.
Whether vegetarian or any other diet concern, anyone I've ever come across was happy to speak up and say "Thanks for the invite! I'd love to come over for dinner, but in case you didn't know, I'm vegetarian/vegan/allergic to milk/gluten-free/diabetic/whatever so can I offer to bring something with?"
On the flip side, when I invite people whether we are eating out or they are coming over, I usually ask if they have any special requests/suggestions.
The hardest to deal with is grandmothers. My grandma repays me in baked goods, and she will not accept when I tell her I try to keep my added sugars and bad fats to a minimum, lol. "Oh that's just silly. Have a brownie."
I agree, Karasti. I'm a picky eater myself, and whenever I invite people over for dinner I always ask about any dietary concerns. Within reason I will provide a substitute for their needs. For example, 2 weeks ago I had people over. 1 was a diabetic. I made a cake -- from scratch -- without sugar for her, while the rest of us had a "regular" cake. I have friends who are into hunting game...and I can't stand eating gamey food. So when I go to their house for a social event, I ask if they will be having venison (or the like), and if they are I say I will bring something for myself or a dish to share. Never a problem.
Part of the problem I'd have, is I haven't the fainest idea how/what to cook for a vegetarian.
If someone offered to BYO, I might come back with, "Give me a shopping list, come early and help cook it."
THAT would be cool.
I dislike venison. Too gamey. Elk, on the other hand is the bomb. Antelope is pretty good too. I hate duck/goose. I've never had wild turkey - would love to try.
>
@Chaz, I metaphorically shut my goddam mouth and take what's given.
My choice is no excuse to bat you over the head and create your discomfort.
if you don't realise I'm vegetarian, then more fool me for not having told you that.
It's happened to me. And that's the way I've played it.
Dear hubby is working on his laptop beside me at the moment.
..
He had to laugh when he saw your comment because, yes, it's all so true...
Actually I have more hair. The trouble is in addition to that on top of my head I have acquired lots from my ears and nose and my eyebrows look like furry caterpillars.
I am reminded of Billy Connelly who said that when he reached 50 he looked in the mirror and saw hair erupting from everywhere on his face.
"You know you're old when you have more hair sprouting from your ears than the top of your head."
unknown
Hopefully we have fifteen more years to go before hubby gets into this werewolf phase...
grammar, @vinlyn.....
My grammar didn't have hair in her ears, but my grandpa did.
But joking aside, are we really going to get into grammar police? ("AS long as we're on the subject to tolerance in diet, lets say I invite you over for dinner. I don't know you're a vegetarian.")
Gotcha! But all in good fun.
My grammar had a hairy mole... one could never stop looking at it...
>
Yup. You are a School Principal, fer chrissakes!!
.
>
I don't get it.... :scratch: .
Your "lets" is actually a contraction that should be "let's".
"fer"?
And why does it matter what pet your grammar had?
>
I didn't write that. I was actually quoting Chaz...
>
Yes. It's a 'colloquialism. as is 'Chrissakes'. The other word in the phrase.
.
>
Well.. she called it 'Peeve'....
I only comment on vegetarianism/veganism when it's made the topic of discussion. My reason for being a vegetarian (striving to be a vegan) is that I cannot morally justify eating factory-farmed meat. Now I feel that some people would like to hear that I have no problem with them eating this kind of meat. IMO that's impossible. If I see this as morally wrong for me, how could I see it as okay for someone just like me? BTW the "just like me" part is important.
It's like that for anything. If I have moral objections against nuclear energy/kicking dogs/playing loud music at night, wouldn't it be weird to say that I have no problems with other people kicking dogs or creating nuclear waste? If I would give my reasons for not eating meat, it's automatically going to be some kind of moral judgement of people just like me who do eat meat. There is just no way around that.
And if people who do eat meat make a moral judgement about your making a moral judgement about them...where does it end ?
>
I stopped eating meat for health reasons, primarily, but I share the same opinions as you do. I agree with your statements regarding animal husbandry, and the treatment of livestock.
Furthermore, as a Dog behaviourist, I can equate with your sentiment regarding the mistreatment of such pets.
But there's a difference.
One is within the boundaries of National law, the other, isn't.
I therefore can only make an appraisal insofar as certain criteria permit.
But that doesn't mean I do not have compassion or understanding.
Furthermore, what gives you the right to adopt the moral high ground, when people are exercising choices placed before them in an absolutely legal and apparently socially acceptable circumstance?
Well, if someone would object to the use of moral arguments, then I would leave the discussion. But if moral arguments are welcomed, then I think it should be accepted that a moral argument against eating meat is inherently a critique of people who do eat meat. To repeat the example, if - in a discussion on how to treat dogs - I say it's wrong to kick dogs, then this is a critique of people who do kick dogs. If people would complain that it's immoral to criticize other people like that, then they are basically saying that moral arguments should not enter into the discussion on how to treat dogs. At that point, I would probably leave the discussion :-).
There's a difference between doing something unlawful, and against the precepts and doing something which is neither unlawful NOR against the precepts.
Therefore, on the one hand you would be both morally and legally correct to criticise the action.
On the other, it would be merely your opinion.
Legal and socially accepted does not mean moral (there are plenty examples of that, such as slavery). I also think that most vegans/vegetarians are not out to prove how much better they are, but that's just my impression.
You're missing the point: You would have the distinct right to criticise someone for being cruel to their dog.
You would have no right to criticise someone for their choices to eat meat.
And trust me - I see far more vegetarians/vegans, getting on their high horses and pontificating how "meat is murder!" and other such condemnations, than I do omnivores accusing vegetarians of depriving their children of nutrition and nourishment, and protesting that vegetarians are faffing in the wind.
I've been a Moderator on here long enough to know that if anyone's going to become unreasonable, start throwing accusations and moral pronouncements around and needing moderation, thread-closing and even on one occasion, banning - it will most certainly be the militant, insistent and judgemental, inflexible vegans/vegetarians.
In fact, that's just what I was thinking...that I have a moral objection to Marteen telling me what I should believe or how I should behave...and as federica pointed out...when I am acting within the law (of all countries)...and not even against the Precepts.
This does not make sense to me. Do you think it's only okay to criticize things that are against the law? But surely the people criticizing slavery (when it was still legal) had a good point? And if the law is not the measure of things, how do you determine what can be criticized and what not?
In your own time, away from here, you can do as you please. While on forum, you will engage in a polite, respectful and courteous manner and cast no aspersions, accusations judgements, negative criticisms or condemnations at any other member. Whether directly or otherwise.
>
Of course there is. Just don't do it.
What you mean to say is, "I have a specific approach, and i don't like the approach by people with a different/opposite opinion to mine, and i will call them out on it, because I feel entitled to, and I'm not going to change that."
I'm merely advising you that on here, you're going to have to.
My point is that in a discussion about meat eating, people will express moral objections to meat eating. These objections will be an implicit critique of people who eat meat (like I said, if would be strange to say that meat eating is wrong for me, but not for anyone else). You can't have a discussion about meat eating without people being criticized, unless you decide that moral arguments are out of bounds.
Just don't do what? Just don't give my reasons? In a discussion on meat eating, I should not give my reasons for not eating meat?
This is getting quite bizarre. I never suggested that it's okay to be disrespectful, or to be calling out on specific persons. All I am saying is that people should be able to bring in moral objections when they feel this is relevant, even if other people feel that these objections are a critique of their choices. I hope that this is the general consensus on this forum.
I fail to see what gives you the right to criticise others for having different tastes to yours.
Sometimes you just have to accept that other people have different opinions.
This is sadly why so many vegetarian-discussion threads get closed.
Because people can't stay polite, and sadly, it's mostly those who don't eat meat who are the most disrespectful.
Why?
because they feel entitled to -
>
It's never relevant if it's levelled or directed at anyone else, either directly or indirectly.
You can say why you don't eat meat, but you cannot use that as a critique, on 'moral' grounds, to call anyone out on the fact they do.
Hope that's clear enough.
@Maarten, by making your posts on here, how many meat eaters have stopped eating meat?
Answer: None.
So that's nagging for the sake of nagging.
@vinlyn, I think you are adressing the wrong person, just look through my comment history and try to find the comments where I mention meat eating at all, maybe the last one was two years ago. I rarely comment on it.
@maarten, No, he didn't mean in all the time you've been here; he meant in this thread.
let me explain something:
Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite or set requirement in Buddhism, generally.
Some schools insist on it, but rather like sex-before-marriage and the question of contraception, in Catholicism, not every adherent to those schools is going to comply;
Theravada schools do not insist on vegetarianism. In fact, they state that the Buddha never forbade it, and there is nothing in the suttas which states anyone following theravada should be vegetarian.
It's a common misconception among non-Buddhists, that all Buddhists are, or should be vegetarian.
So asking, telling, suggesting or criticising anyone with regard to eating meat, on a Buddhist forum, isn't going to gain anything.
An exclusively Theravada forum has a long thread, debating vegetarianism, but as many people there eat meat, it's not a common discussion.
The sister Mahayana Forum however, has a vegetarian thread, and apparently (although I have not seen it myself) it seems that anyone eating meat, contributing to the threads on meat-eating/vegetarianism gets, if you'll pardon the pun, torn to pieces.
But I reiterate, it's what I've heard...
You pays your money and you takes your choice. but one thing is clear - on an omnivorous forum, with a heady mix of members from different cultures, sexual persuasions, genders, Buddhist traditions and opinions on Practice in general, it pays to be very relaxed and laid back.
I'm of the opinion, that such discussions not be allowed.
I don't think I've ever seen a discussion like this go anywhere but badly.
It's like lighting the fuse on a stick of dynamite - sooner, or later, it will explode.
Absolutely so. That was my point regarding so man threads having been closed.
Avoiding such conflict in the first place, by not even 'going there' is by far the best option.
I'm confused on why an opinion has to mean a moral critique on people who think otherwise. It might be the case sometimes, but not always. For example, one of my passions is gay/lgbtq rights. Others don't agree with my stances. Some of them don't share my exact feelings, but it doesn't make my opinion a moral critique of them. But others, such as actual homophobes, yes, it turns into a moral thing because of the logic and reasoning they use to make their argument. It seems the same could apply to many discussions.
Not everyone who eats meat is immoral, and if you believe that, that's pretty horrible. Calling people immoral because they make different choices than you...especially when you don't even know why they make their choices (and the reasons do matter) is pretty much lacking in compassion.
Of course I don't believe that people who eat meat are immoral. I will try to explain again. If I say "I think eating factory-farmed meat is wrong because it aids a cruel industry" then I'm making a moral objection to eating this meat. That doesn't mean that people who eat meat are immoral. But it is an implicit critique of people just like me (meaning: more or less in the same situation as me) who eat this meat. Now someone might complain that by saying this, I am telling them what to believe and how to live. Yes, that's true, I just did, because either I choose to express my moral objection and thus criticize people, or I choose to keep my moral objection to myself.
I believe we can't have a meaningful discussion if morals are left out. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I agree with nagging or calling out on people.
From lengthy experience I know, without a shadow of a doubt that what you 'believe', and what will actually happen, are 2 completely different things.
I think I already made my point quite clear, and don't need to repeat myself.
Hm in this type of discussion one must be very careful of falling in to the following common logical fallacy:" I will always commit some harm, therefore to avoid causing any harm is not worthwhile."
Another common one is: " other beings kill to survive so therefore I should kill" . The second one sounds really insane, but it is extremely common.
Technically, thats not a "logical fallacy". It may a fallacious position, but you haven't demonstrated that it is. You merely assert.
Odd, but I've never heard that one.
No, in truth, neither have I. I have heard that "The Buddha ate meat, so it's ok for us to do it."
However, the only instance of the Buddha taking a meal, with specific ingredient mentioned, is the account of the meal he ate which actually led to his demise.
It is said that he ate pork, but there is some knowledgeable conjecture which actually questions whether in fact the 'pork' mentioned wasn't in fact a type of mushroom.
Both food items can cause severe problems, in their own way, if the provenance is suspect. Furthermore, there is an edible mushroom called 'Ox-tongue' (which I have actually eaten a specimen of) so it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to suppose that there were - or are - mushrooms named after a specific meat.
Some mushrooms are called 'fingers'.... others 'Wood Ear'.... due to their similarity to said anatomical parts....
Diet is just such an individual thing, for SO many reasons. Health, family makeup, budget, environment, culture, climate. Not to mention "I eat meat" can mean so, so many different things. Since most of us don't know why anyone decides what they do, it's irresponsible and lacking in compassion to make sweeping judgements (moral or otherwise) about people and the decisions they make with regards to diet. When we do so, it is for the sole purpose of holding up our ego and our stance in our beliefs.
Everyone arrives at changes in their lives, on their own. I've changed a lot of things in my life over the years. Always due to realizations and changes in understanding because I sought out the information. Not because someone on the internet said so.
The problem with having such moral discussions is that neither side arrives at the discussion with open ears, minds and hearts to truly listen and hear what the other side has to say. Each side arrives as a cavalry, ready to defend their point of view, and that never allows for an open conversation.
Four
Interesting
Pertinent
Articles
I am not classically educated so please explain why this is not at the very least a logical fallacy of relevance. Explain also why a similar statement: - I must bleed a little, so there is no point in stopping any bleeding- is not a technical logic fallacy.
Really? I hear it all the time. I hear it here quite often.
"It's part of nature. Other animals kill other animals all the time."
I know you must have seen that. I guess you're not seeing the silent implication there: {therefore i should kill animals}
my apologies, i have not figured out the new system for quotes and I am in a hurry
I would say that's an entirely justifiable position, except I would choose different wprding.
I'd say, "To to avoid harming other sentient beings is unavoidable and to try is futile. There is nothing to ve gained in futile effort.".
Now, if limiting or reducing the amount of harm we cause is the goal, that's different. However, changing one's diet is not the only path to such a goal, and is not even the "best" one. Limiting personal consumption of fossil fuels is one. We're preparing to open at least one beehive in our yard, which will offset other harm. Mass transit. Rescuing earthworms after a rain. Flicking a mosquito away rather than swatting it.
On the other hand if there is any trace of self in the equation, the karma will always be impure and if whatever merit one gains is not dedicated ..............
Sadly, however, there is no way to discuss this issue without it turning into a big pissing match.
Here's a list of logical fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Logical fallacies would include the "Straw Man", "Begging the Question", "No True Scotsman" and the ever-popular "Ad Hominem".
It's obvious you disagree with the positions you cite, however, because your disagreement is not universally accepted it's incumbent on you to support your criticsm. In other words, why is your position the "correct" or "Logical" one? You offer no evidence and make no case. You are in effect, making a positive assertion and classically, the party making such an assertion must offer support or proof for the assertion to be considered valid.
As such your argument, itself, may fall into one or more categories of logical fallacy, but I can't say which. I'm to lazy to want to follow up on it.