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.
How can BUDDHISTS not be VEGETARIAN?
ALL BUDDHISTS want to liberate ourselves from suffering.
But we see OTHER BEINGS suffer (animals)
and WE EAT THEM (make them suffer/ die just to please our tastebuds)
SO HOW CAN WE CALL OURSELVES BUDDHISTS - all the "compassion" that we try to cultivate & generate, "metta", "love all mother sentient beings" are fake if we eat meat.
Do you agree?
But we see OTHER BEINGS suffer (animals)
and WE EAT THEM (make them suffer/ die just to please our tastebuds)
SO HOW CAN WE CALL OURSELVES BUDDHISTS - all the "compassion" that we try to cultivate & generate, "metta", "love all mother sentient beings" are fake if we eat meat.
Do you agree?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Once we were eating meat we rarely ate vegetarian food any more.
I do not enjoy vegetarian food very much because I am a picky eater, I do not know how to cook it (I hate the health nut movement give me Emeril's vegetarian cuisine and I am good.) I am a picky eater and I don't know very many things that satisfy my nutritional requirement.
Now you can say that I should not complain and I should eat a cuisine that I do not like because I do not know how to cook veggie. I disagree and I think I should mindfully learn more vegetarian cooking. I have bought a vegetarian cookbook by a chef and not a counterculture person and I enjoy many of the flavors. I feel that I have to accumulate some knowledge and then I have to just start cooking vegetarian food. I do not think I should tell my mother what to cook because she is not a buddhist and did not enjoy our time as vegetarians.
There are many Buddhists who do not "believe" in certain aspects of Buddhism, such as rebirth, other spiritual planes with tormented spirits, deities, etc.; and not just because their particular "school" doesn't subscribe to those things. Many doubt parts of the teachings that even their school professes. It's the preference of the individual, brought about because of subservience to "Ego", that allows this.
As we follow down the path and let go of the "self", our views change to be more in harmony with the teachings. We internalize them as if we were never taught any differently, because we come to see the truth rather than simply trust another to tell us the truth. Many Buddhists eventually *do* lose their taste for meat out of compassion. That is not to say that all practicing Buddhists feel this way. Until we've truly gained wisdom from the teachings, we are still lost in ignorance.
Actually, you don't see the living animal being cut down. You only buy a piece of that dead animal.(If you didn't buy it, it's sacrifice would be in vain).
About compassion, yeah, you may feel sorry for the dead animal, but, like I've said above, it's sacrifice would be in vain if you didn't buy and didn't eat that meat.
I do not understand the person who is trying to live extra long by being a vegetarian. To me that is a fearful practice or even a sign of phobia. They're afraid of death. Why not just live life with balance and try to also enjoy it too? Truly eating good food once in a while is one of life's pleasures to be appreciated.
neither is there proof he didn't.
Within the Theravada tradition, it is taught that to kill for one's own gain, or even to get someone to kill on your behalf, is considered extremely bad.
But many Theravadans eat meat, many don't.
Ultimately, vegetarianism is a personal point of view, and much as one should adhere to the core values of one's personal tradition, ultimately, everything we decide to do is our own choice, concluded by cogitation, and careful thought and evaluation.
What that person decided, is up to them to live with.
this "Buddhists 'should/don't have to' be vegetarian" is probably one of the most controversial, inflaming and emotive subjects to exist amongst Buddhists.
By all means, have an opinion.
permit others to have theirs, and be compassionate, understanding and kind.
Judgement has no place here, and criticism of another person's calling or depth of practice is discouraged.
You don't eat meat?
Fine.
You've obviously thought about it and come to that conclusion.
You DO eat meat?
Fine.
you've obviously thought about it and come to that conclusion.
Now? Live with it.
Either way.
Edit note:
Have no idea why this thread originated in the "Arts and Writings" forum.
Moved.
The only thing that allows us to eat meat is our level of intelligence which eventually (meaning not at first) allowed us to craft tools, to harness fire, and then to be able to capture other animals, burn their flesh and consume it. Make no mistake that we are somehow "made" for eating meat - we're not.
It is a mark of our intelligence and what we choose to do with it that we eat meat. We also create nuclear weapons with our intelligence. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. This reply is, BTW, wholly to the person who says we're nature-made meat-eaters. We are vegetarians by nature-design, and omnivores by our own design.
It is also through our intelligence that Buddha dharma was discovered and passed on. So in the same way the preparation of food and meat is held as sacred to many peoples cultures. It's not unnatural. We have been eating it since the beginning of human civilization and we're physically capable of handling it. So we're naturally capable omnivores, those are facts.
Now on whether it's morally right is a matter of opinion.
No. 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 do think that we can and should be mindful of our eating habits and the effects they have on other sentient beings.
From what I understand, science is generally of the opinion that human beings are omnivores and have been for at least 2 million years.
Besides the archaeological evidence, one reason is that our digestive systems is fairly simple, which means that it's well suited for breaking down animal protein, which is easily broken down. Another reason is the fact that our digestive system is unable to break down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. The length of intestines is yet another another reason, which is mid-way between many carnivore species and herbivore species.
There's also an interesting theory that eating meat and cooking food is what helped our brains evolve to be be as large (double the size of other primates) and as intelligent as it is. Some scientists, like Philipp Khaitovich, theorize that this growth in size, which occurred about 2 million years ago, was due to our species eating betters foods, including meat. The growth in cognitive ability, on the other hand, which occurred about 150,000 years ago, may have been due to eating mostly cooked food.
Cooking food helps to break down fibers and makes nutrients more readily available for aborption. In the past, this lessened the energy needed to digest food and freed up calories for our brains, which consumes huge amounts of calories, allowing it to use "the additional calories to grease the wheels of its internal functioning."
We were only able to eat meat after we developed weapons, harnessed fire, etc.; it's something we've chosen to do. Our natural method of survival would be eating fruits, vegetables, perhaps even insect life.
Meat-eating is purely possible by our application of "science", and although science can help explain how the world works, it can't tell us whether we should do something or not merely because we make it possible through invention.
Just because we don't have huge fangs and claws doesn't mean that we're not designed to eat meat, it just means we're not designed to be strictly carnivores. It could very well be that we began scavenging for meat long before we started hunting for it.
If each person was vegetarian, more land would probably be required for agriculture.
Land that is currently used for cattle grazing, unsuitable for agriculture, would probably not be used.
So if all people were vegetarian, there would probably be more harm to the environment, especially forests.
Rather than develop an extreme moral view supporting vegetarianism, it is probably more beneficial for enlightenment to see the sad situation of reality, where various beings are dependent on the consumption of other beings for their survival.
The stories tell us when the child Prince Siddharta was beneath the rose apple tree, upon seeing one animal devour another animal, his mind developed renunciation and entered into the first jhana.
The Buddha advised us there is inherent unsatisfactoriness & imperfection in life (dukkhata). To learn to accept the inherent state of dukkha this is part of enlightenment.
:sadc:
We can do many things now because we've out-smarted nature. At least, we think we have; in truth, we've deluded ourselves beyond almost all hope of getting back to reality. Buddhism gives us hope that at least some of us can, but we must open our minds to all realities of how we got to be in this situation. Reason and common sense must prevail over tradition and self-centered thinking.
Whether we choose to eat meat or not, and for whatever reasons, we should at least do it with mindfulness of the full spectrum of human history. I for one have not been able to fully give up meat yet, but I'm only on the path of seeing. I feel fairly confident that as I progress upon the path of transformation that I will eventually go full-out vegetarian myself.
As has been previously stated, I feel it is a personal point of view. I would not consider the entirety of one's compassion as 'fake' purely because they eat meat, but I do feel that someone's spectrum of compassion is wider by not encouraging the suffering of another.
Unfortunately as a means of survival people must end something's life - whether plant or animal - to live, yet it is up to the individual to draw the line. For example: By simply driving a car we encourage pollution, providing suffering to both animals and plants. By smoking people harm themselves and others. As dukkha exists in these less direct forms as well as directly supporting animal suffering, it is up to the individual to choose what they feel is right.
Not to make quick assumptions about the desired tone of your post, but please be mindful that being compassionate toward omnivores can benefit us vegetarians by allowing a neutral exchange of ideas and beliefs instead of increasing chances of unresolvable debate!
Vegetarianism actually promotes more food being produced for the people. More corn is shipped to feed livestock than for human consumption, and the calorie conversion from corn to beef is appx 20 calories of corn = 1 calorie of beef. Since corn is the largest agricultural industry, that's a lot of corn being transferred into smaller quantities of meat-based calories. If the corn was directly consumed by humans, there would be much more food, we would just be consuming more corn products.
While it's most likely true that our smaller-brained ancestors ate a primarily vegetarian diet, about 2 million years ago we began eating meat. Nobody knows how ancient humans acquired the meat, whether by hunting, scavenging or gathering things like shellfish, but it doesn't really matter how. The point is that they did, and that it was instrumental to our development.
Besides cooking our food, eating meat is probably one of the things that helped our brains to evolve. If we had stuck to being gathers, we probably wouldn't be here now, or at the very least, we wouldn't have the same level of intelligence. This has nothing to do with ethics, it's evolution, and there's nothing more natural than evolution.
But don't get me wrong, I agree that vegetarianism is a more compassionate option that's in line with the Buddha's teachings on ahimsa. And with modern advances in agriculture, we have more vegetarian choices available to us, which is a good thing.
I more or less agree with you here. If you're interested, you can find some of my past thoughts on this subject here and here. But the short version is, more important than what you eat is how you eat.
This is a non-sectarian website with information about Buddhism and vegetarianism for anyone who's interested.
http://www.shabkar.org/
Another website:
http://www.veggiebuddhists.com/
.
Thalassemia has many different forms with different symptoms, and even same-type thalassemias vary a bit according to the person.
Don't ask me why, or how. I don't know.
Anyway, at the beginning of Lent, I decided - with the Clinic Nutritionist's approval - to become vegetarian. Seemed a good time, as I'm an ex-Catholic. Giving stuff up... Old habits die hard, huh....?:D
Last week, I had my Doctor check up.
He took a small blood sample, and because they have a mini-lab at the clinic, he asked me to wait, or go for a walk, and come back in a half hour....
Once back, he said -
"Have you stopped taking your Folic Acid?" (Prescribed to one 5mg tablet per day).
"Nope", I replied, "still taking it regularly"...
"Well, something's up. Your blood-count's low... what have you been doing? or not doing?"
Turns out that cutting out meat so suddenly and drastically was not a good move.
Now, this is a discussion I've had before.
I even had it with the Nutritionist.
There are plenty of suitable meat substitutes, supplements and natural foods that will replace all the nutrients and minerals found in meat...
But much as I wanted to go with it, it just didn't work for me. Either the dosage or frequency was wrong, but I was making myself unwell.
To be honest - it's also heavy on the pocket.
Buying vegetarian foods, (specifically those that would give me everything I need nutritionally) is hideously expensive. finding, locating and buying Vitamin and mineral supplements, and dietary ingredients is time-consuming (it's finding outlets) and they cost a lot of money.
I don't have that kind of money for constant use of this stuff.
So - I've gone back to meat.
Had to.
Quicker, healthier for me, less expensive and much easier.
I now eat meat three times a week.
One portion of white, one of red and one of fish.
Sometimes you have to take the rough with the smooth.
The reason people kill animals is to make money selling them. If nobody buys them, they won't continue slaughtering animals.
Nowadays yes, and this kind of killing, killing for money is available in the developed countries. Come to my country, and you'll see that people slaughter animals to eat them not to make money out of them (this happens in the country-side).
To ask this question this way is to infer some should not call themselves Buddhists if they eat meat.
So I ask, "Given the teaching of all the buddhas is not to judge others, who are we to say? Who are we to judge? Who are we to condemn?"
Love & Peace
Jellybean
Me too. I have beta thalassaemia minor.
I knew we were related.
perhaps the question should be,
How can we call ourselves Buddhists if we sit in judgement about what the majority of Buddhists worldwide ( including the Dalai Lama ) have for lunch ?
Ever since the debate between Devadatta and the Buddha refered to above it has always been the case in Buddhism that what you eat is a matter of personal choice. Unlike Jainism or some forms of the Vedanta where vegetarianism is a requirement.
For most of us, when we eat gobble down mean, it's out of desire and to satisfy our sense pleasures. it's more about us than about the animal and we bring no benefit to that animal at all by us eating it.
I disagree with the argument that "well someone killed the animal and it's there in the supermarket anyway so if I don't buy it and eat it, it would have died in vain." Yes, that animal is dead already but if we keep buying and buying, then they will keep killing and killing to sustain the demand.
People also say that it won't make any difference if just one of us stops eating meat. There can be a big difference as it all adds up. think: over your life time, how many chickens have you eaten? How many cows have you consumed? It can go into hundreds if we think about it. Think how if you refrained from that, how many lives could have been saved.
Also, and most importantly, it is not so much about judging people to do eat meat, but it is about each one of us contemplating the suffering that every single animal has to endure for the sake of our dinners or handbags. Watch the many THOUSANDS of videos out there which document that intense suffering that an animal goes through - see peta websites and watch the documentary "Earthlings" which looks at the terrible animal industries. Contemplate what all these beings go through to satisfy our tastebuds... and they can't do anything about it.
we may not be able to stop the killing by being vegetarian, but karmically, i believe we can contribute to the cause of reducing harm to other animals. We also raise awareness to others of what animals go through and hopefully one by one, more and more people will realise what animals go through and also cut down their consumption of meat. Every little helps.
Here's the video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-osSNX-WtU
Enjoy!
The argument "because we're not the ones killing the animal (or seeing it happen), we're not to blame for eating it" is fallacious: there is a chain of action (karma), beginning with the animal's slaughter, and continuing with your eating of it. It's all part of the same story: there's no exoneration based on "who did the killing," or "whether or not you saw it happen." It's a cooperative effort, even if we see it in a segmented way. Opening our eyes and seeing the whole process (and our part in it) is part of our awakening.
Although I am not currently a vegetarian, I appreciate the OP's exhortation, because I love animals; so the question "why am I killing and eating them?" seems a valid one to me, personally. Plus, eating meat is not a very clean thing to do (there are all kinds of parasites and germs in dead flesh), and I find a vegetarian lifestyle much lighter and healthier for me.
Therefore I am going to take this exhortation to heart, and commence my long-intended switch to vegetarianism.
While I agree with the sentiment, this line of reasoning has some serious consequences when taken to its logical conclusion. For example, are you aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers? That means that, according to the above argument, every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths and is therefore kammically responsible, so we should cease to use the internet as well. And the same can be said for almost everything else we do or buy. We might as well become Jains.
Really....
Just asking......
My suggestion would be to find another doctor.
1) Folic acid (the synthetic form of folate) is dangerous and increases cancer rates in adults and causes multiple problems in children born to mothers who take it. Your doctor should know better than to put his/her patient at risk:
Source:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/folic_acid_dangers_and_prenatal_vitamins.aspx
2) What you need is FOLATE, which is found mainly in fruits and veggies.
3) You weren't getting much folate from meat anyways, unless you were eating liver often.
The point is that we make too many excuses not to adopt a vegetarian diet. I've talked to people who have tried going vegetarian for a week and said they felt too bad and had to go back to their previous diet; I've heard the same excuse from smokers who felt "bad" after quitting for a few days and returned back to the habit.
Another point that comes up: Our bodies are capable of eating meat, therefore we need to. If this was the case, then why do our rates of cancer and other disease INCREASE as we increase animal products in our diet and DECREASE when we reduce and eliminate them?
Nutrition and health aside, it would be naive to think that we do not directly contribute to suffering every time we buy animal products (food, clothing, makeup, etc.). The formula for this can be illustrated like this:
Consumer desires animal product -> Animals suffer and are killed to meet market demands.
Consumer chooses a plant/mineral/synthetic product -> No animals suffer or die.
We can't run away from this reality.
There are plenty of resources to help people transition to a vegetarian or vegan diet. If someone is interested, but are stuck, send me a message and I'll be more than happy to help get you on the right track.
"When we have acquired an awareness of the fact that all beings have been our mothers, and when this awareness is constant, the result will be that when we see meat, we will be conscious of the fact that it is the flesh of our own mothers. And, far from putting it in our mouths and eating it, we will be unable to even take it into our hands or smell its odor."
- Shabkar Tsogdruk Rangdrol
Food of Bodhisattvas: Buddhist Teachings on Abstaining from Meat
Except that insects and animals are accidentally killed in the harvesting and transportation of fruits and vegetables, not to mention the fact that insects and animals are intentionally killed to prevent damage to these crops, which is especially true with industrial agriculture. And the fact of the matter is, you can't expect the majority of the population to be vegetarian without industrial agriculture.
The Buddha was a MAN nothing more, he said so himself.
Is this a regular thing here? The whole denigrating of meat eaters? Or is it just an influx of meat eating bashers?
Because I've come here to learn about Buddhism and all I see is a bunch of usually cool people being assholes about eating meat.
If this site is anti meat eating that's fine, just let me know and I'll find somewhere else to go to learn. It will be disappointing because I really like it here, but I'm sick of reading this stuff.
Respectfully,
Raven
As these people have also been in different countries, but have all advised the same thing, it seems to be working at the moment, so, thanks, but everything's quite ok at the moment....
Dhammachick, it's not just here.
It's on many Buddhist sites. The meat/non-meat issue seems to bring out the worst in many Buddhists.
Frankly, I - like you - am relatively sick of it, but there you go.
Whilst there is intransigent insistence on both sides, it will always be an issue.
I have to watch these forums, obviously.
I would respectfully suggest for you, that if a thread winds you up and rubs you up the wrong way - you avoid it....
That's all I can advise.
Stick with what you're happy with, and "Avoid the company of Fools".
Here is where the difference lies. When you eat beef, you expect that it's cow that's on your plate (the killing was intentional). When you eat tomatoes, it's not insects that you intended to harvest or kill, it's tomatoes (in this case, the harm to insects is accidental and would not result in negative karma).
I don't condone the use of pesticides or herbicides and I don't support genetically modified crops either, so I can do my best in preventing the harm of insects by choosing organic or growing my own food.
The point about industrial agriculture being a necessity for vegetarianism is completely false. The fact is that we rely in agribusiness to grow enough crops to feed LIVESTOCK, not human beings. It takes far less resources, space and water to feed a vegetarian population.
Again, I've heard every excuse in the book and for those of us living in any first world country, there is no reason to continue to use animal products (unless of course there is clinging to these products, which I believe is true for most of us that understand the consequences of using animals yet we choose to ignore the alternatives).
Federica, are you having problems assimilating folates? 30 years and 7 doctors sounds like a physical problem, but even then, my points are still valid regarding folic acid and folate-containing foods. What am I missing?
Cute. I think the OP was asking why so many Buddhists remain ignorant to the fact that eating meat causes suffering and they have a choice to end that suffering.
Your ego may not like that kind of accusation, but the question still remains to be answered with validity.
I can hold a certain amount of respect to those that aren't willing to let go of their clinging to meat, because we have all held onto ideas, habits and traditions at some point and breaking them is difficult. However, when the suffering of billions of sentient beings can literally end by a simple switch of ones diet, it tends to create a sense of urgency to those who understand this simple truth.
I don't agree with like I said just one side shouting from the mountain top...making blanket statements that affect all. vegeterianism is not something that was ever forced as mandatory by Buddha. There are different beliefs and approaches to Buddhism..if there wasn't, there'd be only one body, but no, we are divided into many sects.
Forcing ones beliefs on others and expecting them to accept it, just because, is the total opposite of what Buddhism is about. It's that one sided, militaristic POV that corrupts men and religion and beliefs.
I'm not sure anyone is forcing anyone to become vegetarian, but if ones eyes can be open to the harm that's being done by non-skillful actions, there's no harm in that.
If I was doing something that caused harm and I was unaware of my actions, I would HOPE that someone brought it to my attention so I could change right away!
For example, when people were told that baby bottles contained toxic chemicals, parents replaced them with safer products. It would seem odd that some parents would devise excuses to continue to use these toxic bottles (paralleling with people refusing to end their animal-product addiction). They may say things like "I'm not spending more money on new bottles" or "I used these on my first child and they grew up fine", etc. The excuses don't justify the fact that what they are doing is harmful to at least their children.
I hope that there are more discussions on vegetarianism and Buddhism, because it's an important component to our spiritual development.
"The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion."~ The Buddha
The differences are noted but irrelevant to my point. If you or anyone else here obsessing over vegetarianism actually bothered to read what I write (e.g., this, this or this), you'd see that I support vegetarianism, not only as a more compassionate option in line with the principle of ahimsa, but as a personal practice as well. That said, you wrote:
Consumer desires animal product -> Animals suffer and are killed to meet market demands.
Consumer chooses a plant/mineral/synthetic product -> No animals suffer or die.
We can't run away from this reality.
I simply pointed out the flaw in your argument by addressing the fact that animals do suffer and die (albeit not as many) even when we choose a diet of plant/mineral/synthetic products. I don't mind if people promote vegetarianism as a healthier and more ethical choice, but I do mind when they use poor arguments to do so, or when they insinuate like pathseeker that you're not a real Buddhist if you eat meat.
That's great, and I think more people should try to do grow their own food and buy organic when possible, but do you really expect a poor family in Detroit to grow their own food or to be able to afford organic produce for every meal?
There are 6,808,873,749 people living in the world today. Do you honestly think that they can all be fed without large-scale, industrial agriculture? Especially if you think they should all be vegetarian? I sure don't.
As for the amount of food grown for livestock, which is mostly corn, that's a non-sequitur. We grow mass quantities of corn for a variety of reasons, e.g., animal fed, bio-fuels, local consumption, export, corn-based products that are more environmentally-friendly than petroleum-based products, etc.
Again, if you take the time to read what I've written, you'll see that I support vegetarianism, not only as a more compassionate option in line with the principle of ahimsa, but as a personal practice as well. Although, I'm not so strict that I won't eat meat if it's offered to me, or if I'm sharing a meal with my girlfriend, etc.
Jason, I'm not sure why you have it in your head that I'm making personal attacks against you. Just because I've replied to a single point in a previous post doesn't mean that everything else you said is somehow irrelevant. Lighten up - we are all struggling together.
In regards to feeding the world. YES! We can certainly feed 7+ billion people and some by eliminating livestock and by eating a vegetarian diet!
In fact, the amount of clean drinking water being used to feed cattle right now, could be going to help kids with no drinking water.
I could give you numbers upon numbers that will show you how unsustainable livestock and fishing is and then give you more numbers to show you how sustainable and logical a plant-based diet is for the entire planet. Or you could research the facts for yourself.
FYI:
Over 80% of all corn grown in the US is for livestock
Over 30 million tonnes of soybean crop is for livestock
About 22% of wheat grown in the US is for livestock
How many starving humans could that have fed?
"When you eat meat, you are eating the flesh of all those children who have starved to death, because there wasn't enough food, grain to feed them." - Thich Nhat Hanh
we are not elite club for ourselves only, if Buddha Dharma lost it noble mission to continue helping those deeply ignorances , we lost our actual purpose on earth ( this saha world )
I never said that I thought you were making a personal attack against me, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
That wasn't my question. My question was, "Do you think honestly think that [the 6,808,873,749 people living in the world today] can all be fed without large-scale, industrial agriculture?" And that question was asked in relation to your assertion that no animals suffer or die when we choose a diet of plant/mineral/synthetic products.
The point I was trying to make is that insects and animals are accidentally killed in the harvesting and transportation of fruits and vegetables, as well as intentionally killed to prevent damage to crops, meaning that even produce isn't 100% free from harm. And this is especially true with industrial agriculture, which feds most of the U.S., although even organic farmers use pesticides (they just can't use certain kinds).
Probably a lot. And that goes to prove my point since almost all of that was grown and harvested by large-scale, industrial agribusinesses in the U.S. I definitely think that most agribusinesses need a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly business model, and that local communities should try to support their local farmers markets whenever possible, but I don't think that you can feed the growing population of the world a vegetarian diet without large and efficient farms.
Actually, I think poverty and private ownership of land are more to blame than simply meat eating.
Militant vegetarians are in my experience, invariably, displacing.
I know one particularly militant and aggressive vegetarian personally, and his life is one phukkup.
Sorry, but it is.
I know of some others, and it would seem they have a load of baggage....
Edit note;
By the way, has anybody noticed how Pathseeker (The OP of this thread) pulled the pin, lobbed the grenade, stuck his fingers in his ears and ran for cover to the nearest hole?
Where has he come back to make comment on this thread?
That really irritates me.
When people bang a hornet's nest with a controversial comment, then stand back and watch the fireworks!
(How many more metaphors could I use?
How socialist you become, dearest Jason, and I think you make a crucial point. Let us fiddle and faddle about, discussing our over-abundant and choice-laden diet whilst our neighbours starve. Let us worry about what we are putting in our mouths so that we can ignore that our hands are empty, with nothing to share with our sisters and brothers. Let us whine about raising and killing cattle while we send our young to the battlefield.
By all means, discuss your diet but, for all our sakes and for your own, do not believe that it is important.