Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Non-Vegetarian Buddhists - Lesser Buddhists?

124678

Comments

  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    What we eat is not important beyond basic need. We will all be dead in a hundred years anyway.

    May I ask why you say this? Are you implying that since we will all die one day, it makes no difference the amount of suffering we create in another living being? Perhaps I just understood it wrong?
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    I dont care what you think about what other people eat.
    As it happens and without any plan to do so, in the last few months I have been present when the Dalai Lama and Ajahn Sumedho ate chicken..on two seperate occasions. What we eat is not important beyond basic need. We will all be dead in a hundred years anyway. The point is mindulness in actions. Not being macrobiotic superiorists.
    though just because authoritative figures like the dalai lama are eating meat, that does not make it right to do so. but do not get confused when i or anyone else use terms like 'right' when dealing with this issue, the vegetarian argument is not a matter of being superior to non-herbivores, the brunt of vegetarianism in buddhism is whether or not meat-eating causes actual, experienced suffering. it is not about righteousness in any sense it is only about whether or not there is suffering. that is why what we eat is important and why our choices of diet are extremely connected to mindfulness. even that buddha himself ate meat is not conducive to the argument, for siddhartha lived in different times, which means a completely different context that we may not be able to fully relate to. it is definitely a matter of individual choice, but that does not mean the discussion has to end. if beings are suffering, people will continue to speak out in order to end that suffering.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Life causes Dukkha. The point is to end the cycle of birth and death. Lunch has nothing to do with it per se. At least no more than other activity which requires mindfulness.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MindfulMe wrote: »
    May I ask why you say this? Are you implying that since we will all die one day, it makes no difference the amount of suffering we create in another living being? Perhaps I just understood it wrong?


    The suffering is inevitable, sentient life is characterised by dukkha, anatta and anicca.
  • edited February 2010
    His Holiness Dalai Lama quote: “Killing and eating meat are interrelated, so do we have to give up eating animal products? I myself once tried to give it up, but health problems arose and two years later my doctors advised me to again use meat in my diet. If there are people who can give up eating meat, we can only rejoice in their noble efforts. In any case, at least we should try to lessen our intake of meat and not eat it anywhere where it is in scarce supply and our consumption of it would cause added slaughter.”

    Note: I grabbed this off the internet, can't guarantee it's authenticity.
    :)
  • edited February 2010
    Shouldn't our decisions about such things be based more on personal discovery, and less on "what I see other people doing"? For me, that is the essence of Buddhism.

    Look inward, not outward. I grew up in a "meat and potatoes" family; most of the time it was me out at the grill, barbequeing the chicken. When I tried out my vegetarian experiment, I got all of the same "You'll never survive" commentary..a quarter of a century later I still seem to be chugging along in good health. (So far, any way...[knocks on wood])
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    The suffering is inevitable, sentient life is characterised by dukkha, anatta and anicca.
    that does not mean that it should be augmented though
    sentient life is also sacred, and characterized also by sukha (happiness)
    why is it inevitable? is this what the buddha taught? perhaps life as it is now, as it's stained by samsara, but is this an inherent and inescapable thing?
    that thich nhat hanh quote also demonstrates that meat industry is directly linked to human suffering, which has a lot to do with the cycle of birth and death. if we are killing and raising animals for meat, i do not think that helps ease, uh, he he he, the cycle of birth and death.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Sentient life is not sacred. It is not profane. It arises and passes. It is what it is.
    Samsara is the condition of things. It cannot be escaped. It can be transcended, that has nothing to do either way with lunch. Lunch cannot help us see the nature of things. Neither can it prevent that seeing. Killing vegetables rather than partaking of flesh might have a feel good factor for some. It doesnt alter the fact that people have become Enlightened through the ages on every possible diet. Buddhadharma is not Hindudharma.
  • BaileyDBaileyD Explorer
    edited February 2010
    Seems to me that the original spirit of this thread has been lost. Does eating meat make someone less of a Buddhist than someone who doesn't? We can argue to no end why we should or shouldn't eat meat, but in the end aren't we still Buddhist? Are we to judge another's practice?
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Exactly.

    Palzang
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    BaileyD wrote: »
    Seems to me that the original spirit of this thread has been lost. Does eating meat make someone less of a Buddhist than someone who doesn't? We can argue to no end why we should or shouldn't eat meat, but in the end aren't we still Buddhist? Are we to judge another's practice?

    I agree. We have to remember that we aren't christians. They argue with each other about being right and wrong. Eating meat or not eating meat can be argued back and forth and it has. I eat meat because I have very limited diet restrictions. I don't believe in hunting unless it is for the need of food. In these times we have grocery stores so hunting isn't something we should have to do. I do think we need to treat animals with compassion before they are slaughtered. I do think some of the things PETA types spew are lies and exaggerations. I think the best thing for all of us to do is look at things logically with compassion thrown in.
  • edited February 2010
    BaileyD, I think to answer your question: "Does eating meat make someone less of a Buddhist than someone who doesn't?"

    It would really depend on how you define your practice. Some Buddhists might think that meditation is all that is needed, while others believe it has more to do with reciting chants and reading scriptures.

    If you follow the precepts, the first one clearly states that we should not kill or prevent the right to live. This is not exclusive to human beings - this encompasses all living creatures. If you eat meat out of a need to survive, you are not "less" of a Buddhist, but most of the world that does not live in poverty has options not to eat meat, thus has the CHOICE to follow the first precept.

    If you were to substitute "eating meat" for "lying", "stealing", "committing adultery", etc. there would still be a battle of opinions, as most people can justify doing just about anything with the notion that they are not responsible for their choices.

    "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." - Dalai Lama
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    Sentient life is not sacred. It is not profane. It arises and passes. It is what it is.
    could you elaborate on this statement for me por favor, and what would this mean in the context of the first precept
    Samsara is the condition of things. It cannot be escaped. It can be transcended, that has nothing to do either way with lunch. Lunch cannot help us see the nature of things. Neither can it prevent that seeing. Killing vegetables rather than partaking of flesh might have a feel good factor for some. It doesnt alter the fact that people have become Enlightened through the ages on every possible diet. Buddhadharma is not Hindudharma.
    well r ee ah o, i don't know what gumhole you picked this out of, but escaping samsara and transcending it i would say are the same thing, the essence of attachment & pain and misery is samsara and we bubble away from that all the time in our practice, but i am not trying to say that personal enlightenment has anything to do with diet, of course not, of course not, i'm not sure which gumhole you're picking this out of either. i'm talking about bodhisattvaness, this has nothing to do with our own personal enlightenment, i'm talking about ending suffering for OTHER beings where and if it exists, & i'm pretty shure it does so long as there is a meat industry, but correct me if i'm wrong. yo yo have you been to the ego-doctor? man my ego-radar always goes kooky in these arguments, it's a touchy issue- who's judging, baileyD? ah if i'll twist it around it could be that you ("you") is judgin we when "you" say, "thou shall not judgeth me ye vegetable-munchers & non-animalcrunchers, for if thou doeth so thou swallow the pain of sin! ye heathens!"
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Pietro Pumokin, I have not the slightest idea what you are conveying here. apart from assuming that you are vexed about something...you have lost me. Is English perhaps not your first language ?
  • edited February 2010
    Agreed that the whole notion of "less of a Buddhist" is silly, and well, not very Buddhist..? :tongue:

    Both sides of the debate seemed to be vexed to some degree; the topic is always a trigger. The answer to the question "Is vegetarianism implied in the Precept" has always seemed very clear to me...I'll leave it to others to decide what is clear to them. :)
  • edited February 2010
    Agreed that the whole notion of "less of a Buddhist" is silly, and well, not very Buddhist..?

    Agree 100%
    I think vegetarianism isn't necessarily a "Buddhist" matter. We don't steal, kill or hurt other not because we think "I'm a buddhist, I don't have to do this". We don't do that kind of things because we feel like it's not right.
    The same happens with eating meat. I don't eat meat because it's not right.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    The Dalai Lama presumably thinks its right for him.
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    The Dalai Lama presumably thinks its right for him.
    the Dalai Lama's doctors are traditional Tibetan medical doctors.
    Often times meat is medicine in the Tibetan and Ayurvedic medical systems.
    HHDL has been prescribed meat by his doctors for health reasons. He has also publicly stated that he only eats meat about once a week.
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    Pietro Pumokin, I have not the slightest idea what you are conveying here. apart from assuming that you are vexed about something...you have lost me. Is English perhaps not your first language ?
    english is my first and last language! sorry for asking you if you've gotten your ego checked, cause i'm not vexed, but i'm glad you used that word because i love that word. i don't know maybe you are thrown off from me saying "por favor" and "gumhole" but you still didn't answer the first question posed, which was clearly conveyed my friend, that is, why is not life sacred and what do you mean by "it just is"?

    and obviously no one is a lesser buddhist in any regards whether it be how much meat you eat or how often you meditate. that is of course, very absurd and quite contrary to anything buddhism stands for. however, i still believe this is an issue that should be thoroughly discussed, as among buddhists. it is an individual choice, of course, and we should definitely not say to each other, "you ought to do this", in a morally authoritative way, but that does not mean we should end it right there and say, "well it's your personal decision so let's not talk about it anymore". maybe citta you're right in considering life nothing but something that arises and falls, for then we can talk about this more objectively, just as any other topic in buddhism. (though i still consider life sacred)
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    english is my first and last language! sorry for asking you if you've gotten your ego checked, cause i'm not vexed, but i'm glad you used that word because i love that word. i don't know maybe you are thrown off from me saying "por favor" and "gumhole" but you still didn't answer the first question posed, which was clearly conveyed my friend, that is, why is not life sacred and what do you mean by "it just is"?

    and obviously no one is a lesser buddhist in any regards whether it be how much meat you eat or how often you meditate. that is of course, very absurd and quite contrary to anything buddhism stands for. however, i still believe this is an issue that should be thoroughly discussed, as among buddhists. it is an individual choice, of course, and we should definitely not say to each other, "you ought to do this", in a morally authoritative way, but that does not mean we should end it right there and say, "well it's your personal decision so let's not talk about it anymore". maybe citta you're right in considering life nothing but something that arises and falls, for then we can talk about this more objectively, just as any other topic in buddhism. (though i still consider life sacred)



    But the saga of Dune is far from over. Sorry your post just had that epic quality to it.
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Maybe if we all concentrated on "fixing" ourselves and not everyone else, we could perhaps get that little bit closer to Nirvana.

    Also have any of you talking in absolutes of eating meat being wrong taken Boddhisattva vows? I apologise in advance for any errors as I'm still a newbie at Buddhism, but isn't judging people here being very non-Buddhist?

    As for the Dalai Lama and the meat comment that he has to eat it for health reasons, that's like a way out card. Either you think he's wrong for eating meat or he's not.

    - Raven
  • DeshyDeshy Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Lol this debate is probably the hottest topic except maybe for "should you be celibate?" no pun intended
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Pietro Pumokin , would you care to define "sacred" ?
  • edited February 2010

    As for the Dalai Lama and the meat comment that he has to eat it for health reasons, that's like a way out card. Either you think he's wrong for eating meat or he's not.

    not really. Your statement is actually pretty ethnocentric whether you intended it to be or not ( i dont think you did ). But to dismiss a sophisticated medical system and to basically compare it to a cop-out argument doesnt really suffice for an argument in this case.
    Tibetan and Ayurvedic medicine often prescribe certain dietary inclusions and exclusion for patients. These prescriptions have proven to be effective and the theory behind them is thorough and precise.
    Personally I believe HHDL has been very candid and transparent about this.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Which rather underscores the point Shenpen Nangwa that diet is not an absolutist issue.
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited February 2010
    not really. Your statement is actually pretty ethnocentric whether you intended it to be or not ( i dont think you did ). But to dismiss a sophisticated medical system and to basically compare it to a cop-out argument doesnt really suffice for an argument in this case.
    Tibetan and Ayurvedic medicine often prescribe certain dietary inclusions and exclusion for patients. These prescriptions have proven to be effective and the theory behind them is thorough and precise.
    Personally I believe HHDL has been very candid and transparent about this.

    You're right, I did not intend my statement to be absolute at all. I was trying to highlight that my understanding was that some were saying "oh eating meat is bad but HH The Dalai Lama can because he has health issues". I apologise for misconstruing my statement.

    My actual own standpoint is that I don't think one can be so absolute on anything in life. After all, as Buddha himself taught, everything is in a state of change. I personally agree with you and what you said about Ayuverdic and Tibetan medicine.

    I apologise once again for my clumsy post. I'll try to be more clear in future :)

    - Raven
  • edited February 2010
    You're right, I did not intend my statement to be absolute at all. I was trying to highlight that my understanding was that some were saying "oh eating meat is bad but HH The Dalai Lama can because he has health issues". I apologise for misconstruing my statement.

    My actual own standpoint is that I don't think one can be so absolute on anything in life. After all, as Buddha himself taught, everything is in a state of change. I personally agree with you and what you said about Ayuverdic and Tibetan medicine.

    I apologise once again for my clumsy post. I'll try to be more clear in future :)

    - Raven

    Nothing to apologize for Raven.
    I think an even worse argument that people use is, "The Dalai Lama eats meat, so it must be ok."
    Once again it ends up being people taking things out of context in order to support their own habitual comforts. As dharma practitioners we are supposed to be working with and understanding our habitual tendencies not reinforcing them.
    peace
    sn
  • edited February 2010
    Citta wrote: »
    Pietro Pumokin , would you care to define "sacred" ?
    well i said that in response to your comment saying that life is intrinsically full of dukkha, so meat-eating is not really adding anything new, there is suffering either way by the virtue of life itself. right? and that's when i said life is sacred and not full of dukkha (nirvana is reality, not samsara). what i meant was that life is not a vat of sorrow and suffering, life is joy and nirvana itself, in each and every being whether an ant or an elephant, so no matter in what being occurs it is beautiful, wonderful, awe-inspiring, glorious, pure, sacred.

    and so, why cut it short when eating merely for sensual luxury and not survival?
  • edited February 2010
    and in my opinion even killing and eating another being for survival is questionable, and also this is more than just an animal rights issue, the meat industry is tied in with a lot of other issues that face the whole planet from what i've heard
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2010
    Nothing to apologize for Raven.
    I think an even worse argument that people use is, "The Dalai Lama eats meat, so it must be ok."
    Once again it ends up being people taking things out of context in order to support their own habitual comforts. As dharma practitioners we are supposed to be working with and understanding our habitual tendencies not reinforcing them.
    peace
    sn

    The fact that the Buddha rejected Devadatta's demand to institute vegetarianism as a requirement is enough for me to say that eating meat doesn't make one less of a Buddhist, although I agree that we can and should be mindful of our eating habits and the effects they have on other sentient beings.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    And the definition of "sacred" ?
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Pietro,

    Your point with the meat industry is precisely why I have rejected all animal products except an occasional trout I catch or Salmon once a week. The issue with eating meat has changed (for me) from just a personal ethical viewpoint to one that is essential for our species' survival.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited February 2010
    The Buddhist view is that eating meat from an animal not killed by you does not accrue karma for you. But that killing a salmon or other sentient creature does.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Your point with the meat industry is precisely why I have rejected all animal products except an occasional trout I catch or Salmon once a week.

    And what makes the occasional salmon or trout more acceptable than the occasional hamburger or piece of chicken?
    and in my opinion even killing and eating another being for survival is questionable

    But allowing yourself to die for another being's survival isn't "questionable"? Shouldn't eat at all, then.
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I've always thought plants as beings also.
  • edited February 2010
    I'm jumping in kind of late here, but I have to address this....
    Aldrisang wrote: »
    Well, since Buddhists have conflicting views on the issue, why consider the Buddhist standpoint? Let's consider the standpoint on evolutionary terms.

    Are humans designed by nature to be meat-eaters at all? Do we have very sharp teeth for eating raw meat, claws or other natural weapons for attacking animals, speed or poison or something else to give us an advantage? As far as our bodies go, no.

    You might say our brain, our intelligence, is our advantage. However, we were not always the architects of tools for hunting. Therefore we were originally vegetarians, and our evolving brain gave us the capacity to overpower other animals, kill them and burn their flesh.

    Just because we can do a thing it does not follow that we must. Our brains also give us the capacity to create nuclear weapons. That is no more natural than anything else we've done with intelligence as a base.

    It is largely because of eating meat that our brains have evolved like they have. Proteins found in meat are essential for brain growth and development. Now, with that said of course in modern day it is no longer necessary to eat meat in order to get these proteins. But to say that we're not designed by evolution to do so simply isn't true. Humans are, by nature omnivorous. Our bodies are equally designed for the consumption of animal or plant. That we don't have the razor sharp teeth of some animal on the African plain does not negate that.
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited February 2010
    And what makes the occasional salmon or trout more acceptable than the occasional hamburger or piece of chicken?


    The difference is my occasional trout or salmon does not drastically affect the local and world environment (I only eat fish that are abundant and well managed) and my great-grandparent's would still recognize my trout and salmon as food. Our modern chicken and beef are so drastically different from what nature produced that I am disgusted with what we have done to them. Seeing a cow too fat to walk and in need of a forklift to get it to the slaughter house or a 10 pound chicken that has breasts bigger than my girlfriends is gross. Additonally, to feed these animals we count almost entirely on corn. Corn depletes the earth's nutrients and is extremely temperamental. With a slight average change in the environement, we could be in serious trouble for our food production. As a species we have invested so much of our natural resources to meat production that our species' survival is hinged to just a few plants that are not that reliable.

    So to answer your question, there isn't too much wrong with eating an occasional genetically engineered chicken or hamburger compared to my occasional naturally born brooke trout, but most people do not eat meat sparingly and I am grossed out by what we call meat nowadays.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited February 2010
    There are local butchers who do not treat their animals in any such way. (And of course there are some who do). Who said anything about genetically engineered and abused animals? That is my main problem with meat-eating... the way animals from most sources and treated throughout their lives and then killed. So you're making assumptions in your last post.
    my great-grandparent's would still recognize my trout and salmon as food.

    So they didn't have cheeseburgers back then. Did they have computers like the one you're typing on that's moochin' and wastin' our energy? :p
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I am not assuming anything about what you eat. I was speaking in general terms. The butchers that are local do not kill animals they buy slaughtered meat and in the U.S. hardly anyone goes to the butcher anymore, they go to Walmart or Costco for their meat. I am not policing what you eat and I am not claiming you eat anything. For all I know you are a buthcer, I am was speaking in general terms.

    My great-grandparents would recognize a hamburger but not the cow it came from. I use a computer and I am not against technology or advacements but developing something new like a computer and engineering a chicken to be 10 times its size are two distinct things.
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    The difference is my occasional trout or salmon does not drastically affect the local and world environment (I only eat fish that are abundant and well managed) and my great-grandparent's would still recognize my trout and salmon as food. Our modern chicken and beef are so drastically different from what nature produced that I am disgusted with what we have done to them. Seeing a cow too fat to walk and in need of a forklift to get it to the slaughter house or a 10 pound chicken that has breasts bigger than my girlfriends is gross. Additonally, to feed these animals we count almost entirely on corn. Corn depletes the earth's nutrients and is extremely temperamental. With a slight average change in the environement, we could be in serious trouble for our food production. As a species we have invested so much of our natural resources to meat production that our species' survival is hinged to just a few plants that are not that reliable.

    So to answer your question, there isn't too much wrong with eating an occasional genetically engineered chicken or hamburger compared to my occasional naturally born brooke trout, but most people do not eat meat sparingly and I am grossed out by what we call meat nowadays.


    I agree with you on all points. The question in this thread is about eating meat form a Buddhist stand point. I think you are eating meat in a very responsible way. I think others are taking your posts in the wrong way. Eating a fish once in a while is very mindful.
  • edited February 2010
    .

    This is a website which is worth browsing, it has lots of information about Buddhism and vegetarianism.

    http://www.shabkar.org/




    .
  • edited February 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    This is a website which is worth browsing, it has lots of information about Buddhism and vegetarianism.

    http://www.shabkar.org/
    .

    Thanks for the link. I've downloaded some PDF's... will read them later.

    :)
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I agree with you on all points. The question in this thread is about eating meat form a Buddhist stand point. I think you are eating meat in a very responsible way. I think others are taking your posts in the wrong way. Eating a fish once in a while is very mindful.

    :cool:

    The whole premise of this thread about thinking one is a better Buddhist than someone else is more damaging to your progression towards enlightenment than whether or not you eat meat.

    On the side of survival as a species we need to re-evuluate our food practices.
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    :cool:

    The whole premise of this thread about thinking one is a better Buddhist than someone else is more damaging to your progression towards enlightenment than whether or not you eat meat.

    On the side of survival as a species we need to re-evuluate our food practices.



    True. I myself feel that everyday with my food allergies.
  • edited February 2010
    Namaste everyone

    Just back from India and saw that there had been new members since I last posted in december. Dont know if some of you still remember me.

    Setting aside the intellectual discussions on meat eating for the moment.......

    If any of you think it's quite alright to eat meat then I will suggest this.

    Go get a knife, slit the throat of a cow or a chicken and see how you feel about it and think about the whole scene the arises from the activity.

    Then while you're at that moment see how the animal react.

    Do you think it's worth all the trouble?

    Besides all of that, being vegetarian or eating less meat is good for the environment (you contribute less to greenhouse gas warming for example) and it's a lifestyle that renders the intelligent use of our land.

    Namaste
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Ok I went and killed a few animals. Now I'm hungry.
  • PaxPax
    edited February 2010
    Nini wrote: »
    Namaste everyone

    Just back from India and saw that there had been new members since I last posted in december. Dont know if some of you still remember me.

    Setting aside the intellectual discussions on meat eating for the moment.......

    If any of you think it's quite alright to eat meat then I will suggest this.

    Go get a knife, slit the throat of a cow or a chicken and see how you feel about it and think about the whole scene the arises from the activity.

    Then while you're at that moment see how the animal react.

    Do you think it's worth all the trouble?

    Besides all of that, being vegetarian or eating less meat is good for the environment (you contribute less to greenhouse gas warming for example) and it's a lifestyle that renders the intelligent use our land.

    Namaste
    I've always thought this was a valid part of the vegetarian/meat eater discussion. I occasionally eat meat...but there is no way I could kill an animal myself. It's a bit of a conundrum that I'm working on. It's also, to my view, an excellent illustration of how far removed we are from our food chain, not really a good thing when we're trying to live more simply.
  • edited February 2010
    Nini wrote: »
    If any of you think it's quite alright to eat meat then I will suggest this.

    Go get a knife, slit the throat of a cow or a chicken and see how you feel about it and think about the whole scene the arises from the activity.

    Then while you're at that moment see how the animal react.

    Do you think it's worth all the trouble?

    While I've never personally done such I have witnessed it being done. I still eat meat, so now what?
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I'm going to eat more meat tonight.....with sauce on it.
  • edited February 2010
    I'm going to eat more meat tonight.....with sauce on it.


    Awesome.
Sign In or Register to comment.