Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Buddhism and meat

Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 5:08:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Buddha was a vegetarian, and pushed it as well as compassion generally.
I am compassionate, I support compassion in the world...

but Buddha suggests that compassion typifies Ultimate Reality somehow
I think this emphasis on compassion really stands out/contradicts his positions on metaphysics and ethics generally... So I can see why you don't think vegetarianism seems like it would be part of Buddhism.

I'd say Daoism is rather similar to buddhism, but without the metaphysical type claims about compassion.

here's a thread/post from a while ago on the broader topic of compassion in buddhism: http://www.debate.org...
At 3/20/2011 1:49:37 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/20/2011 1:42:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
As you can see, Buddhist ethics is the opposite of what you claim.

lol..

I've said before that Buddha's putting Compassion on a pedestal is a Glaring inconsistency with the rest of his understanding of things...

and it seems that he talked out of both sides of his mouth on this one...

If he made it more clear that his support of Compassion amongst people was due to His Compassion... Then it would be AOK..

but instead he makes it seem as though Compassion characterizes buddha's.. characterizes those who properly understand the world...

I don't see how having Compassion relates to understanding the world.. or understanding that there's an underlying Ultimate reality lying behind all things..

It would seem one can be compassionate.. or Not compassionate.. or just a little bit sometimes.. and STILL understand the nature of things just as well as anyone else..

It would seem Compassion characterizes spontaneous feeling at seeing others suffer... Not Understanding.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:02:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 5:37:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
Buddha wasn't a vegetarian.

Well, perhaps not...

but definitely seems as though it's suggested that, because of the importance of Compassion, people shouldn't Kill animals.

Tough to eat meat otherwise... Though I suppose it's possible :/
jh1234lnew
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:10:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Buddhism teaches not to kill, and that presumably includes the killing of animals. The killing of animals is necessary for eating meat, unless you want to eat that fly-infested raccoon lying beside that garbage can.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:35:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:39:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:35:36 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:59:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:39:02 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:35:36 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:01:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:59:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:39:02 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:35:36 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:03:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:01:29 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:59:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:39:02 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:35:36 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:31:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness. Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move. I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:12:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 4:52:16 PM, Lupo wrote:
I've read several texts about vegetarianism in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

I'm Buddhist. I eat meat. I don't see how Lord Buddha did not explicitly say that "do not eat meat" After all, it is all about the intention of one.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:26:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness.
Feel free to demonstrate some veracity for that claim.

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?
You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:42:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:26:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness.
Feel free to demonstrate some veracity for that claim.

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive. Same applies to eggs from any variety of creature. This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that? Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?

You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 3:00:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:42:00 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:26:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness.
Feel free to demonstrate some veracity for that claim.

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive.
And you base this on what? Did you used to be a clam? Oh... well if you were, according to you, you wouldn't have known it. So how do you propose to know whether or not a clam is aware of its own existence?

Same applies to eggs from any variety of creature.
I would agree that, up to a certain level of development, an egg offers no indication that it has a functional nervous system. At some point that changes and the nervous system does become functional, and then quite possibly, the emerging animal becomes aware of its own existence.

This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that?
This seriously isn't obvious to you? Would you like to donate your body to feeding the lions at the local zoo? Why, or why not?
And isn't it interesting how when I mention it, it's a "nebulous concept" and then you feel perfectly justified to turn right around and tell me what a clam is, and isn't aware of, without even a hint that you might have some means for pretending to know that?

Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.
Are you suggesting that you're a shark, or some other species of fish or bird? Or do you hold yourself to some human standard of behavior, which you would not expect of a fish or bird?


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?


You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
I'm not moving goal posts but you're doing a rather frantic dance while trying to dodge the goal posts. All you have to do is explain why it's morally sound to eat a sentient/self-aware animal, but not moral to eat a human (which is a sentient/self-aware animal).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 3:39:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 3:00:35 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:42:00 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:26:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness.
Feel free to demonstrate some veracity for that claim.

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive.
And you base this on what? Did you used to be a clam? Oh... well if you were, according to you, you wouldn't have known it. So how do you propose to know whether or not a clam is aware of its own existence?

No, based on the fact its a clam. Its nervous system gives it the ability to process stimuli, though there is no reason to conclude that anything gets translated into 'suffering', it lacks a proper brain or ganglia in which to process or forumlate a response to extricate itself from that situation. After more research than I care to do for a clam in the past few minutes, just to be on the safe side, thus far it seems that the variety of receptors it might have are for the purpose of orientation, detecting vibration, detecting shadows, and 'tasting' for what might be in the water.

This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that?

This seriously isn't obvious to you? Would you like to donate your body to feeding the lions at the local zoo? Why, or why not?

Rather than asking questions, try answering them.

And isn't it interesting how when I mention it, it's a "nebulous concept" and then you feel perfectly justified to turn right around and tell me what a clam is, and isn't aware of, without even a hint that you might have some means for pretending to know that?

Tabbed browsers, and a heaping helping of general knowledge. Those aren't your sole property. ;)

Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.

Are you suggesting that you're a shark, or some other species of fish or bird? Or do you hold yourself to some human standard of behavior, which you would not expect of a fish or bird?

Yes, actually, there are plenty of behaviors I would not expect of a fish or bird. Should a fish or bird become contemplative of its life, or the morality of eating worms, I would be not only shocked but a little impressed.


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?


You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
I'm not moving goal posts but you're doing a rather frantic dance while trying to dodge the goal posts. All you have to do is explain why it's morally sound to eat a sentient/self-aware animal, but not moral to eat a human (which is a sentient/self-aware animal).

In the instance of 'it or me', I go with 'me'. If we get to invent hypotheticals: trapped on a boat at sea with a chicken, some snakes, and some strawberries, is it moral to at some point eat any or all of the above? Of course.

When trapped in the same boat with just a person, is it moral at some point to eat them? Of course not.

When trapped on the same boat with a person and the variety of critters, would it be moral to eat the person first? Should it matter?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:01:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 3:39:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 3:00:35 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:42:00 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:26:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:11:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
in Buddhism, and don't see how the act of eating meat is against this religion, or immoral.
There are Buddhists that eat meat?

Would it be immoral for someone to eat your mother or wife? If so, why?

Of course it would, unless we want to call one like just as good as any other. If we do that then:

Using that variety of equivocation, doesn't eating a vegetable in fact 'kill' it? I mean, if a life is a life is a life, then, well, a carrot is no better than a clam which is no better than a person, right?

Have you made it this far in life believing that plants are self-aware?

Ah, so we establish criteria. Okee, are fish self aware? Amphibians? I think we can draw the line at birds, birds seem to know themselves in a mirror, along with mammals, so that would be reptiles and below, then.

You were unaware that criteria have long existed for determining what forms of life exhibit a nervous system and therefore, the ability to suffer, verses those which do not, and can not?

Okay, we have gone from self aware to now have a nervous system. Can I get a final destination, or is this ten yard fight going around the globe a few times?

Can you show me an animal which demonstrates self-awareness yet lacks a nervous system? Do you want to play this cutsie game of ignorance for the rest of the night or would you rather cut to the chase and admit that I have a very valid point?

So then which is it? No creature with self awareness lacks a nervous system, but plenty of cratures with a nervous system lack self awareness.
Feel free to demonstrate some veracity for that claim.

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive.
And you base this on what? Did you used to be a clam? Oh... well if you were, according to you, you wouldn't have known it. So how do you propose to know whether or not a clam is aware of its own existence?

No, based on the fact its a clam. Its nervous system gives it the ability to process stimuli, though there is no reason to conclude that anything gets translated into 'suffering', it lacks a proper brain or ganglia in which to process or forumlate a response to extricate itself from that situation. After more research than I care to do for a clam in the past few minutes, just to be on the safe side, thus far it seems that the variety of receptors it might have are for the purpose of orientation, detecting vibration, detecting shadows, and 'tasting' for what might be in the water.


This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that?

This seriously isn't obvious to you? Would you like to donate your body to feeding the lions at the local zoo? Why, or why not?

Rather than asking questions, try answering them.


And isn't it interesting how when I mention it, it's a "nebulous concept" and then you feel perfectly justified to turn right around and tell me what a clam is, and isn't aware of, without even a hint that you might have some means for pretending to know that?

Tabbed browsers, and a heaping helping of general knowledge. Those aren't your sole property. ;)

Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.

Are you suggesting that you're a shark, or some other species of fish or bird? Or do you hold yourself to some human standard of behavior, which you would not expect of a fish or bird?

Yes, actually, there are plenty of behaviors I would not expect of a fish or bird. Should a fish or bird become contemplative of its life, or the morality of eating worms, I would be not only shocked but a little impressed.


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?


You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
I'm not moving goal posts but you're doing a rather frantic dance while trying to dodge the goal posts. All you have to do is explain why it's morally sound to eat a sentient/self-aware animal, but not moral to eat a human (which is a sentient/self-aware animal).

In the instance of 'it or me', I go with 'me'. If we get to invent hypotheticals: trapped on a boat at sea with a chicken, some snakes, and some strawberries, is it moral to at some point eat any or all of the above? Of course.

When trapped in the same boat with just a person, is it moral at some point to eat them? Of course not.

When trapped on the same boat with a person and the variety of critters, would it be moral to eat the person first? Should it matter?

Well... not that you're talking to me but if I was trapped in the same boat with a variety of critters and no plants, veggies or fruit, I'd eat them in this order:

1. Invertebrates - not much sentience happening with a clam.
2. Vertebrates
3. Vegans (Beastt probably tastes better than most meat eaters)
4. Everyone else! (gamy, yet satisfying)

In all seriousness, I wouldn't eat the people for the same reason I don't eat mammals, fish and birds. I can't bring myself to do it. Being a vegetarian, for reasons of sentience, I would eat a fish to stay alive and I'm sure that even the most avid vegan would do it if it meant survival.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Nevearo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:51:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Its about purity of body. Animals are reincarnated life that has not progressed to the point where they can achieve nirvana.by killing them or having them be killed for your benefit you defiled yourself and cannot achieve nirvana. That's how it's against Buddhist religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a Buddhist the more likely you are to be a vegetarian.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 3:41:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive.
And you base this on what? Did you used to be a clam? Oh... well if you were, according to you, you wouldn't have known it. So how do you propose to know whether or not a clam is aware of its own existence?

No, based on the fact its a clam. Its nervous system gives it the ability to process stimuli, though there is no reason to conclude that anything gets translated into 'suffering', it lacks a proper brain or ganglia in which to process or forumlate a response to extricate itself from that situation. After more research than I care to do for a clam in the past few minutes, just to be on the safe side, thus far it seems that the variety of receptors it might have are for the purpose of orientation, detecting vibration, detecting shadows, and 'tasting' for what might be in the water.


This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that?

This seriously isn't obvious to you? Would you like to donate your body to feeding the lions at the local zoo? Why, or why not?

Rather than asking questions, try answering them.


And isn't it interesting how when I mention it, it's a "nebulous concept" and then you feel perfectly justified to turn right around and tell me what a clam is, and isn't aware of, without even a hint that you might have some means for pretending to know that?

Tabbed browsers, and a heaping helping of general knowledge. Those aren't your sole property. ;)

Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.

Are you suggesting that you're a shark, or some other species of fish or bird? Or do you hold yourself to some human standard of behavior, which you would not expect of a fish or bird?

Yes, actually, there are plenty of behaviors I would not expect of a fish or bird. Should a fish or bird become contemplative of its life, or the morality of eating worms, I would be not only shocked but a little impressed.


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?


You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
I'm not moving goal posts but you're doing a rather frantic dance while trying to dodge the goal posts. All you have to do is explain why it's morally sound to eat a sentient/self-aware animal, but not moral to eat a human (which is a sentient/self-aware animal).

In the instance of 'it or me', I go with 'me'. If we get to invent hypotheticals: trapped on a boat at sea with a chicken, some snakes, and some strawberries, is it moral to at some point eat any or all of the above? Of course.

When trapped in the same boat with just a person, is it moral at some point to eat them? Of course not.

When trapped on the same boat with a person and the variety of critters, would it be moral to eat the person first? Should it matter?

Well... not that you're talking to me but if I was trapped in the same boat with a variety of critters and no plants, veggies or fruit, I'd eat them in this order:

1. Invertebrates - not much sentience happening with a clam.
2. Vertebrates
3. Vegans (Beastt probably tastes better than most meat eaters)
4. Everyone else! (gamy, yet satisfying)

In all seriousness, I wouldn't eat the people for the same reason I don't eat mammals, fish and birds. I can't bring myself to do it. Being a vegetarian, for reasons of sentience, I would eat a fish to stay alive and I'm sure that even the most avid vegan would do it if it meant survival.

I dig, and no worries about jumping in on a convo, open forum after all. There is a large discussion worked in here about industrialized farming, ranching, GM foods, the potential detriment of various kinds of foods when raised rather than hunted, culture of food choice, history of food choice, etc. but its not being had. The morality, I feel is a bit more deep than bringing oneself to do something, as if one HAS to to survive, then its clear we value certain lives over others even if the other life is 'innocent' in terms of the hypothetical.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 3:41:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Its not MY cutsie game, if you haven't noticed, I have been offering up questions and suggestions to satisfy your criteria, only to have your criteria pick up and move.
I'm not moving. I've been stating the same point, using different words. If you want to claim that creatures with a nervous system lack the awareness that they exist, then be my guest.

I assure you, a clam has no effing clue its alive.
And you base this on what? Did you used to be a clam? Oh... well if you were, according to you, you wouldn't have known it. So how do you propose to know whether or not a clam is aware of its own existence?

No, based on the fact its a clam. Its nervous system gives it the ability to process stimuli, though there is no reason to conclude that anything gets translated into 'suffering', it lacks a proper brain or ganglia in which to process or forumlate a response to extricate itself from that situation. After more research than I care to do for a clam in the past few minutes, just to be on the safe side, thus far it seems that the variety of receptors it might have are for the purpose of orientation, detecting vibration, detecting shadows, and 'tasting' for what might be in the water.


This is what I mean by nebulous concepts, btw. Aware that they exist, or consciousness of their existence, what exactly are you aiming for with that?

This seriously isn't obvious to you? Would you like to donate your body to feeding the lions at the local zoo? Why, or why not?

Rather than asking questions, try answering them.


And isn't it interesting how when I mention it, it's a "nebulous concept" and then you feel perfectly justified to turn right around and tell me what a clam is, and isn't aware of, without even a hint that you might have some means for pretending to know that?

Tabbed browsers, and a heaping helping of general knowledge. Those aren't your sole property. ;)

Sharks turn cannabilistic if the need suits, fish don't form opinion of thier situation, birds don't philosophize that the nature of their existence rely on agreed perceptions, most creatures in general don't consider the well being of their prey beyond its status of live of dead. Respond to stimuli and contemplate the nature of their place in the world are widely different.

Are you suggesting that you're a shark, or some other species of fish or bird? Or do you hold yourself to some human standard of behavior, which you would not expect of a fish or bird?

Yes, actually, there are plenty of behaviors I would not expect of a fish or bird. Should a fish or bird become contemplative of its life, or the morality of eating worms, I would be not only shocked but a little impressed.


I again ask: is there a finish line, or is there going to be a new slightly more nebulous concept to veil your position in?


You already know the finish line. And if this is going to be your argument, then please demonstrate that the animals commonly eaten by people are only those which provide no indication that the are self-aware.

Why would I need to do that beyond your desire to move the goal posts (again). I don't recall bringing up animals commonly eaten, I am trying to gauge where the moral implications of eating meat stop. Self awareness? Ability to 'suffer'? Whether or not such a creature -does- suffer before being consumed? Has the capacity to suffer? These are things I am wanting answered.
I'm not moving goal posts but you're doing a rather frantic dance while trying to dodge the goal posts. All you have to do is explain why it's morally sound to eat a sentient/self-aware animal, but not moral to eat a human (which is a sentient/self-aware animal).

In the instance of 'it or me', I go with 'me'. If we get to invent hypotheticals: trapped on a boat at sea with a chicken, some snakes, and some strawberries, is it moral to at some point eat any or all of the above? Of course.

When trapped in the same boat with just a person, is it moral at some point to eat them? Of course not.

When trapped on the same boat with a person and the variety of critters, would it be moral to eat the person first? Should it matter?

Well... not that you're talking to me but if I was trapped in the same boat with a variety of critters and no plants, veggies or fruit, I'd eat them in this order:

1. Invertebrates - not much sentience happening with a clam.
2. Vertebrates
3. Vegans (Beastt probably tastes better than most meat eaters)
4. Everyone else! (gamy, yet satisfying)

In all seriousness, I wouldn't eat the people for the same reason I don't eat mammals, fish and birds. I can't bring myself to do it. Being a vegetarian, for reasons of sentience, I would eat a fish to stay alive and I'm sure that even the most avid vegan would do it if it meant survival.


I dig, and no worries about jumping in on a convo, open forum after all. There is a large discussion worked in here about industrialized farming, ranching, GM foods, the potential detriment of various kinds of foods when raised rather than hunted, culture of food choice, history of food choice, etc. but its not being had. The morality, I feel is a bit more deep than bringing oneself to do something, as if one HAS to to survive, then its clear we value certain lives over others even if the other life is 'innocent' in terms of the hypothetical.

Well, if suddenly out of the blue everyone stopped eating meat there would be a lot of cows, chickens, pigs, etc. that would be without purpose and starving. The meat industry would die outside of obvious pet food, and there would be open season on hunters because they couldn't use the "I eat what I shoot" excuse anymore. But agriculture would be thriving. ;)

The genetically modified food is a whole other argument. It's unhealthy and it feels morally wrong to me. Being atheist the term playing God means nothing to me. It's the natural impact that it might have that gives me pause.

It is cultural. Eating certain things is social behavior and can be a religious preference as well. Not eating certain things can get you teased and left out of all the fun. I should know.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."