Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[Matthew]

If we take the bawang ideology of literally not caring about non-human animals...

When we determine others are too different to readily identify with, it is easier to alienate and disregard their welfare.



To extrapolate/exaggerate.. Would it be easier to stab and murder humans with disregard if you were already a butcher?


That is, I'm directly asking you to examine "the grey area between direct intentional murder and indirect support of unnecessary murderers"



Where do you think that "clear conscience" (like bawang says he has toward non-human-animals killing) may cross the line into false, or repressive states?

In otherwords, there are plenty of murderers in the modern era who have murdered others and claimed they 'didn't feel bad for them' or that 'they feel they have a clear conscience'...

how thick do you believe the gradient between where those murders are (possible repression) and where the average person who consciously indirectly supports unnecessary non-human animal enslavement/killing is?

------------------

WARNING, GRAPHIC VIDEO AND PHOTOS INCLUDED IN LINK: Further discussion (not directly related, but spawned my interest in posting this): A man who stabs 3 pedestrians to death, without reason in ShenZhen, China.

[bawang]

To extrapolate/exaggerate.. Would it be easier to stab and murder humans with disregard if you were already a butcher?

you want to treat animals like people, when your people treat humans like animals. how can you be humane to animals if you are not humane to human beings?

[Matthew]

you want to treat animals like people, when your people treat humans like animals. how can you be humane to animals if you are not humane to human beings?

Right, but both stem from the same issue - which is lack of nourishment of the root of compassion.

Teaching children and people about unnecessary animal enslavement and killing is one way to nurture that compassionate root.

maybe its not eating meat that causes murderous nature, its your murderous nature that compels you to eat meat.

Teaching children about how animals are killed for food and letting them make their own decision would make a lot more vegetarians and plant-based eaters quick.

So that is allowing Children the option to nurture their compassion root.

Vegetarianism is one external manifestation of such nourishment - but the other manifestations (such as overcoming murderous/violent natures) speak more to what you are saying.

[bawang]

Vegetarianism is one external manifestation of such nourishment - but the other manifestations (such as overcoming murderous/violent natures) speak more to what you are saying.

why can a lion eat meat, but humans cant? what exempts lions from being murderers?

[RenDaHai]

how thick do you believe the gradient between where those murders are (possible repression) and where the average person who consciously indirectly supports unnecessary non-human animal enslavement/killing is?

Tis a vast chasm of difference.

There is a natural order to things.

Every being values the life of their 'in group' over the lives of other groups, except when a super group exists, one that nurtures them. Our Society is more valuable than our individual, our individual is more valuable than another society, etc. It must be this way.

When we grow in wisdom, our definition of 'in group' grows to encompass more and more, but the law still stands and we still have an 'in group'.

Society is more important than the individual, society has decided it is not ready to include animals in our 'in group'. We are a very long way from this. We do not even include all humans in our 'in group' yet.... it is foolish to fight too much for animals when far greater injustices remain to be conquered.

[Matthew]

why can a lion eat meat, but humans cant?

You are really asking two questions with this - my take:

1) Why do [you think] lions eat meat, but humans shouldn't?

I didn't say humans shouldn't - but that it is unnecessary.

Lions are carnivorous and would die or suffer serious threatening illness if they didn't.

2) What moral or ethical responsibilities [do you believe] humans have that lions do not?

I think the very fact we do not need animals for consumption, and the fact that we can deliberately make that decision is what distinguishes us from nearly any other non-human.

So basically we are like Spiderman who have great responsibility. (with great power comes great responsibility)

[Matthew]

When we grow in wisdom, our definition of 'in group' grows to encompass more and more, but the law still stands and we still have an 'in group'.

These laws and definitions are creations of the mind.

Merely being a passive observer is often cited as one of the reasons great atrocities happen. So long as there aren't groups presenting alternatives vocally, "the norm" will continue to be the definition that supersedes what you're saying.

We do not even include all humans in our 'in group' yet.... it is foolish to fight too much for animals when far greater injustices remain to be conquered.

I agree in part with you, although you didn't say it explicitly. Eating vegetarian/vegan does not guarantee one is more compassionate...

But it certainly is a skillful means to nurturing compassion toward all beings.

If I don't eat a pig or a cow because I include them in my in-group... how much LESS likely I am to harm you intentionally.

So, your "Greater injustices [that] remain to be conquered", IMO, can only be conquered by nurturing the root of their cause, which is a lack of compassion toward other beings.

IMO, teaching youth about how unnecessary animal enslavement and killing is, is a direct skillful means of nurturing that root.

[wenshu]

These laws and definitions are creations of the mind.

So is compassion.

Especially when it is nothing more than lip service as a means for feeling morally superior to others on the internet.

IMO, teaching youth about how unnecessary animal enslavement and killing is, is a direct skillful means of nurturing that root.

If people didn't eat or otherwise utilize cattle, pigs, and fowl they wouldn't exist today.

[RenDaHai]

These laws and definitions are creations of the mind.

Merely being a passive observer is often cited as one of the reasons great atrocities happen. So long as there aren't groups presenting alternatives vocally, "the norm" will continue to be the definition that supersedes what you're saying.

These laws can be seen in all creatures. It is not a creation of any mind but every mind.

Indeed, two types of evil exist, to commit evil and to allow it to happen. And indeed this conversation must be had.

If I don't eat a pig or a cow because I include them in my in-group... how much LESS likely I am to harm you intentionally.

So, your "Greater injustices [that] remain to be conquered], IMO, can only be conquered by nurturing the root of their cause, which is a lack of compassion toward other beings.

IMO, teaching youth about how unnecessary animal enslavement and killing is, is a direct skillful means of nurturing that root.

I agree in a way. Compassion has no opposite, it has no extreme, it is wuji, no yin and yang, It is only truth. It has no change, So it is the ultimate ideal.

The universal mind, the vital impulse of nature, can be seen in part in all living things, and so compassion is born.

But things must have their time. There are those who would kill and commit atrocities to protect animals... Teaching compassion for animals may not teach compassion for all things, it may skew a mans perception of the order of things.

Animals do not have the same potential as their masters and so they cannot be enslaved. It is not the correct word.

I agree to nurture the root of compassion, but strong words like murder and enslavement do not do this, they arouse anger.

[bawang]

I think the very fact we do not need animals for consumption, and the fact that we can deliberately make that decision is what distinguishes us from nearly any other non-human.

getting b12 from rotting bacteria sludge in fermentation tanks is not a natural lifestyle. gays and child molesters say their lifestyles are natural.

.

If I don't eat a pig or a cow because I include them in my in-group... how much LESS likely I am to harm you intentionally.

your people can choose not to eat meat because you have the power over the world, you have built your blood stained eden. you think you are higher than all the gods, you can do anything.
if a pig or a cow is in your in group, I will eat them as if I am eating you.

[RenDaHai]

...because you have the power over the world, you have built your blood stained eden.

Haha, nice turn of phrase.

In a village near me, there are two families of note. One named Zhang, the father is mean to everyone, but he loves his family and they have the best of everything. The other named Chen, he is obsequiously nice to everyone, but he beats his wife and children and their life is not a happy one.

Which man do you respect more? Which one would you make Chief of the village?

[bawang]

Haha, nice turn of phrase.

In a village near me, there are two families of note. One named Zhang, the father is mean to everyone, but he loves his family and they have the best of everything. The other named Chen, he is obsequiously nice to everyone, but he beats his wife and children and their life is not a happy one.

Which man do you respect more? Which one would you make Chief of the village?

do you enjoy drinking urine more, or consuming feces? that's a stupid question.

Which one would you make Chief of the village?

I would make myself chief of the village.

[RenDaHai]

do you enjoy drinking urine more, or consuming feces? that's a stupid question.

As is that. Drinking urine is much safer, its the obvious choice.

I was making an overt analogy to the way America governs in comparison to lesser countries.

[bawang]

I was making an overt analogy to the way America governs in comparison to lesser countries.

I don't see how.

[RenDaHai]

I don't see how.

Seriously?

America treats its 'in group' well. It does as it pleases with the rest of the world, but its own citizens enjoy one of the best lifestyles available.

Countries like Russia may claim America is evil because it preys on other nations, but to prey on others is not as great an evil as to prey on ones own. Many other nations are guilty of this. They claim to be passive but are cruel to their own people. They are passive only because they do not have the power to be otherwise.

Which is better? To be good to your own and mean to others or to be good to others but mean to your own? What is the natural order of things?