THE REASONS WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Hinduism Today
http://www.hinduismtoday.com
Besides being an expression of compassion for animals,
vegetarianism is followed for ecological and health
rationales
REASONS
In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters -- Hindus
and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision to stop
eating the flesh of other creatures.
There are five major motivations for such a decision:
1. The Dharmic Law Reason
Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first duty
in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
2. The Karmic Consequences Reason
All of our actions, including our choice of food, have
Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of
inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by
eating other creatures, one must in the future experience
in equal measure the suffering caused.
3. The Spiritual Reason
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we
ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and experiential
patterns. If one wants to live in higher consciousness, in
peace and happiness and love for all creatures, then he
cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By
ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one
introduces into the body and mind anger, jealousy, anxiety,
suspicion and a terrible fear of death, all of which are
locked into the the flesh of the butchered creatures. For
these reasons, vegetarians live in higher consciousness and
meat-eaters abide in lower consciousness.
4. The Health Reason
Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is easier
to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients and imposes
fewer burdens and impurities on the body. Vegetarians are
less susceptible to all the major diseases that afflict
contemporary humanity, and thus live longer, healthier,
more productive lives. They have fewer physical
complaints, less frequent visits to the doctor, fewer
dental problems and smaller medical bills. Their immune
system is stronger, their bodies are purer, more refined
and skin more beautiful.
5. The Ecological Reason
Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss of
topsoils and the consequent increase of water impurities
and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact
of meat in the human diet. No decision that we can make as
individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on
the improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision
not to eat meat.
HISTORY
The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
later the British. With them came the desire to be
'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a meat-
oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
"That vegetarianism has always been widespread in India
is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was observed
by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by Fa-Hsien, a
Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth century, traveled
to India in order to obtain authentic copies of the
scriptures.
"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the flesh
of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI declares that
one should 'refrain from eating all kinds of meat,' for
such eating involves killing and and leads to Karmic
bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic literature,
the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja Parikshit, is
quoted as saying that 'only the animal-killer cannot relish
the message of the Absolute Truth [Shrimad Bhagvatam
10.1.4].'"
SCRIPTURE
He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the
flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever
species he may take his birth. MAHABHARAT 115.47
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8
The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV 262.47
The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by his
wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste;
the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and killing the
animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who
brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of
an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and
eats it -- all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in
all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --he sees
the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is
the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by
hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path.
BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28
Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas.
Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest self-
control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is the
highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is the
highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching. MAHABHARAT
18.116.37-41
What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on
how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324
All that lives will press palms together in prayerful
adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.
TIRUKURAL 260
What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting life,
for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL 312, 321
Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one
who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature's
flesh. TIRUKURAL 253
Hinduism Today
http://www.hinduismtoday.com
http://www.hindu.org
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Dutch
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
> Hinduism Today
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com
>
> Besides being an expression of compassion for animals,
> vegetarianism is followed for ecological and health
> rationales
>
> REASONS
>
> In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters -- Hindus
> and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision to stop
> eating the flesh of other creatures.
>
> There are five major motivations for such a decision:
>
> 1. The Dharmic Law Reason
>
> Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first duty
> in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
> creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
This advice is flawed on several levels.
Eating animal flesh does not cause injury, it harms no living thing.
Abstaining from meat does not prevent injury to animals, it only removes
the evidence.
The rest of the message commits similar egregious logical errors.
No true spiritual leader would post to a discussion group named
alt.fan.my.name.
Dragonblaze
Maharaj) wrote:
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
[snip]
The practicing Hindu and the practicing Vegetarian in our office
almost came to blows when the Hindu dispelled the Vegetarian's
illusion about Hindus not eating meat. Our practicing Hindu explained
that it is only some jatis and sannyasins who do not eat meat. The
rest of them tuck into a nice healthy meat dish. The Vegetarian was
very disappointed.
pearl
Great post, Jai Maharaj. Thank you!
fanabba
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
> Om Shanti
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museumhttp://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophyhttp://www.hindu.orghttp://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslimshttp://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Thank you, Dr. Jai Maharaj
ker...@gmail.com
Doug Wimbish
> Great post. Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>>WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Indeed!
Hindu's have sex with the animals they raise! In India!
Hindu's have spiritual MARRIAGE to the animals they have at hand!
..In India!
HINDU's refuse to eat what they fuck?
But Hindu's stuff veggies up their orifaces.. and eat them later.
Hindu's drink their own piss for health reasons.
Some Hindi's claim to be from India, and move to Hawaii and proclaim
to hate the USA, all people that have different faiths, and people of
different colored skin.. Like Jay Stevens/Jai MAHARAJ!
Rudy Canoza
new-age bullshit artist - lied:
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
Most Hindus *do* eat meat.
Doug Wimbish
MOST Hindu's also marry dogs, snakes, cows, and trade their own children
for dogs, snakes, cows, and bundles of sticks wrapped in mud that will
burn for home heating fuel.
They also consume plants daily that cause halucinations so as to believe
in many "gods"... some with many appendages!
No SINGLE INDIAN(hindi or otherwise) has ever won an Olympic medal
except this year... and that was for sharp shooting with a small FIREARM!
They can't run,jump,swim,box,skate,dance,lift weights, think...etc!
Hindu's are useless!
They are the worlds "stuff".
Jay Stevens is a perfect example.
If those dirty rat stinky Hindu bastards ate some meat, then that second
most populouse country in the world,(yet still a forth world) MIGHT be
noticed for something other then cheap labored idiots that are told to
do somthing besides what the rest of the world tells them.
Cows are GOOD EATS!
(Stop worshipping them! EAT THEM!
Fish _is_ BRAIN FOOD, you Hindu morons!
(Your Country is surrounded by Oceans! Utilize it!)
Breast Milk is yummy and nutritious...that's why women have tits! And
why you worshipped Cows in the first place, you retards!
MILK is what Hindu?
That's right!
Animal goo juice!!
habshi
Ram was a hunter , pretty pointless if you wont eat the deer
afterwards
Mudali
Hindus respect cow for the sole reason of milk. Are you drinking dog
milk? Are you feeding your child with dog or donkey milk?
Your racist rants are coming from a Christian Church.
Mudali
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
Maha Bharat talks about HUNTING by Princes.
Ramayan talks about Hunting by Rama.
Emporer Ashoka's kitchen details talk a lot about cooking meat..
Rig Veda talks about eating beef by Brahmans and others.
You are a dumb ass and try to fool not only the Americans but try to
fool Hindus as well!
If your claims are right history, you must tell why those HINDU Kings/
Princes went for Hunting.
After the muslim invasion many CASTES tried to become Brahmans to get
favors from the Muslim invaders. Islam always a RACIST one which
propagate CLASS, CASTE and many more social ills. Many North Indian
tribes suddenly became Brahmans when Hindu Kings were vanished. Muslim
invaders always treated these FAKE Brahmans good for many reasons. The
invading Arabs found Brahman women for FREE from the North Indians
gypsy tribes.
Example: NEHRU which is a POLISH name. Kashmir is another solid
evidence of POLISH connection. These Polish and other gypsies from the
Eastern Europe arrived and settled in many parts of North india. How
did these POLISH gypsies become HINDU Brahmans?
Nehru family always close to Muslims because of their ancestoral
connections with the Muslims who helped these Polish Gypsies wealthy.
His daughter and sister married Muslims.
Gujarat is another well identified place of GYPSY sttlement. These
Gujjus who are the ancestors of this MUSLIM MAHARAJ, converted to
Islam without any resistance. GYPSIES has a tradition of prostitution
and always tried to be part of people in Power.
The founder of Pakistan Ali Jinnah was a GUJARATTI and even failed to
convince his own daughter to go to Pakistan. Jinnah was another GYPSY
decendant.
Before the arrival of Muslims to india, Hindu kings barred temple
priests and the workers of Temples from eating meat. Brahmans were
working in Hindu temples only at that time. This issue happened in 9th
century.
Muslim invaders found good MEAT source in India from the farm animals.
That time Arabs did not have FARMS or Cattle in Arabia. Indians
respected COWS next to mother because of the MILK.
Later beef eating is enforced as a fight against Hindus by Muslims and
Christians. That is why muslims became ally of Christian invaders.
North Indians, many of them originated from GYPSIES became FAKE
BRAHMANS during the rule of invaders. These FAKES later branded the
real Hindus as HARIJANS.
Veda Vyasa, who compiled the VEDAS, was a son of a FISHER_WOMAN. After
the independence these FAKE BRAHMANS started to cry that they are the
vegetarians and TOP of the HINDU society. They created many foolish
stories and started to call meat/fish eating Hindus are lower than
them. This attitude intensified the CASTE problems in many areas.
Only Brahmans in the Temples are prohibited from eating meat because
of the lower energy requirement. But Kings, and other castes are not
requested by any one to be vegetarians.
The Pakis/North Indians who are always dancing to the tunes of
invaders, are the GYPSY decendants and have nothing to do with
original Indian inhabitants. Though I witnessed Paki Muslims in many
villages do not kill COWS. When I asked they simply said, cow-milk is
next to mother's milk.
Bengal Brahmans are eating FISH even today! They call FISH as SAMUDRA
PUSHPA or flower of ocean!
Is this Muslim GYPSY Maharaj from Mombassa, Kenya, tell those Vedic
Bengali Brahmans are not Brahmans?
Vegetarianism is for people who are not involved in HARD WORK in Hindu
society.
Mudali
Meat eating was prohibited to the people who work in Hindu temples
only! The GYPSIES like this Muslim Maharaj never know the history of
HINDUS of India.
Mudali
Because of Milk, Hindus respect the cow. No one feed dog milk or other
milk to their children!
If a mother is short of milk, cow-milk is the only choice to help the
child!
Blaming Hindus by you has no point!
Your Christian Church propaganda is a fun!
Mudali
Hindu Temple workers are required to be vegetarians since 9th century.
Others including Hindu Kings are not prohibited.
In old days Women were in-charge of the Hindu temples and Male
brahmans were the priests. Hindus found meat eating create more SEX
problems in the Temples. The vegetarian issue became a Hindu law for
the Temple workers only and not for other Hindus!
Christian.Muslim laymen eat meat and chasing boys and girls every day
because of the meat.
Any person with the knowledge of ANIMAL FAT and Chlostrol will know
this fact!
Rudy Canoza
> 70% of Hindus in India eat meat ,
Of course they do. jay stevens doesn't know a fucking thing about
Hindus, ahimsa, or really much of anything. He's a fraud.
Rudy Canoza
jay stevens, fraudster, doesn't know much of anything.
dh
>WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
>Hinduism Today
>http://www.hinduismtoday.com
>
>Besides being an expression of compassion for animals,
>vegetarianism is
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
uNmaiviLambi
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Please visit:
>
> http://www.pcrm.org
>
Many thanks. Eating meat 1) damages environment 2) promotes
insensitivity to life and cultivates violence 3) most likely unhealthy
for human health, especially diet whose major part is meat.
Ecological damage can be lessened to a greater degree through
avoidance of meat than by control of industries in comparison. I am
not saying we should not manage industries ecologically but saying
this only to emphasize the damage through meat eating
Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzFC7QP628A
Many are addicted to meat. True. They can at least appreciate the
values of avoiding meat. They can admire those who do avoid meat and
work on attaining that goal. They can reduce meat, especially large
animals and avoid meat at least on some days. Designate one day at
least to avoid meat.
Each person who avoids meat at least one day a week saves one acre of
trees every seven years.
Please consider all this.
Mudali
Forest products are not used in raising cattle. Only Humans destroy
forests for many products for their life style.
Humans must control their population growth first. That will save
forests.
Further people feed farm animals and let their kids go hungnry in
India. Indians compete with cattle to eat food. Brahmans must stop
drinking MILK and the milk must be given to the HARD working Indians.
Rudy Canoza
A bullshit, pseudoscience site.
Dutch
<ker...@gmail.com> wrote
> Great post. Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
Nobody needs to be a vegan, you CHOOSE to be a vegan, likely for a number of
reasons of which you are not aware.
dh
>On Dec 25, 3:18 pm, Doug Wimbish <Withjeffb...@bass.gov> wrote:
>> ker...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Great post. Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
>>
>> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>
>> >>WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>>
>> Indeed!
>>
>> Hindu's have sex with the animals they raise! In India!
>> Hindu's have spiritual MARRIAGE to the animals they have at hand!
>> ..In India!
>> HINDU's refuse to eat what they fuck?
>>
>> But Hindu's stuff veggies up their orifaces.. and eat them later.
>> Hindu's drink their own piss for health reasons.
>>
>> Some Hindi's claim to be from India, and move to Hawaii and proclaim
>> to hate the USA, all people that have different faiths, and people of
>> different colored skin.. Like Jay Stevens/Jai MAHARAJ!
>
>Hindus respect cow for the sole reason of milk.
If the cow has a decent life of positive value that should be
taken into consideration as well as when animals have lives
of negative value, and as well as or more than the fact that
they are slaughtered. All those things must be taken into
consideration in order to get a realistic interpretation of whether
or not raising them is cruel *to the animals*.
>Are you drinking dog
>milk? Are you feeding your child with dog or donkey milk?
Maybe it would be better than cow milk...maybe not.
What differences do you think are significant in regards to
the nutritional content of those three types of milk?
>Your racist rants are coming from a Christian Church.
Which parts are true? Which parts are not?
dh
Goo insists that populations must continue to grow or there will
be too many old people and not enough young working people to
keep things going.
>Further people feed farm animals and let their kids go hungnry in
>India. Indians compete with cattle to eat food. Brahmans must stop
>drinking MILK and the milk must be given to the HARD working Indians.
Advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" try to persuade people
to believe that if everyone stopped eating meat, hungry people would no
longer be hungry because there would be plenty of food for them then.
But there's enough food to feed them now, so...?
dh
>Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
Here's our equation for figuring out whether life is positive or
negative for all things. "P" is lives of positive value. "N" is lives
of negative value. "V" would be the value we want. We want to
determine if "V" is positive or negative.Since some want to insist
that we don't benefit from our existence let's represent existence
--or life iteself--with "e".
e + N = -V and e + P = +V
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The first definition for "life" above is "e" in our calculation, and
the second definition can be either "P" or "N".
Mudali
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why did not you think that Humans use only COW-MILK to feed their
kids?
Respecting COW is not a religious issue but CHRISTIAN churches use the
COW against HINDUS who are still following many old concepts of the
nature.
Mudali
>
> - Show quoted text -
Animal Rights.. They always fight for Dogs and Cats.. and not for
other animals. I dont want to say that meat eating will stop HUNGER
because the cycle of nature demands one animal has to eat another
animal. Humans are also part of the animal kingdom! Humans eat meat
for thousands of years and the ideologies developed by humans are
contradicting NATURE.
Rudy Canoza
> Great post. Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
It was a crap post, of course, as all posts by the phony
not-a-doctor/not-a-Hindoo jay stevens always are.
There is no "need" of any kind for us to be "vegan".
Dutch
> If the cow has a decent life of positive value that should be
> taken into consideration as well as when animals have lives
> of negative value, and as well as or more than the fact that
> they are slaughtered. All those things must be taken into
> consideration in order to get a realistic interpretation of whether
> or not raising them is cruel *to the animals*.
Of course, but a being "getting to experience life" is never a consideration
when we are judging whether or not what *we* do is cruel. There are no "God
points" available to us, that is the fundamental error of The Logic of the
Larder.
Rudy Canoza
stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:24:50 -0800 (PST), Mudali <mud...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 3:18 pm, Doug Wimbish <Withjeffb...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>> ker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Great post. Good way to explain why we need to be vegan.
>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>>> Indeed!
>>>
>>> Hindu's have sex with the animals they raise! In India!
>>> Hindu's have spiritual MARRIAGE to the animals they have at hand!
>>> ..In India!
>>> HINDU's refuse to eat what they fuck?
>>>
>>> But Hindu's stuff veggies up their orifaces.. and eat them later.
>>> Hindu's drink their own piss for health reasons.
>>>
>>> Some Hindi's claim to be from India, and move to Hawaii and proclaim
>>> to hate the USA, all people that have different faiths, and people of
>>> different colored skin.. Like Jay Stevens/Jai MAHARAJ!
>> Hindus respect cow for the sole reason of milk.
>
> If the cow has a decent life of positive value
Meaningless, Goo. It is not a rationale for the cow to live. That's
the discredited "logic of the larder" you're spewing, and it goes nowhere.
Doug Wimbish
I say that if you are a "true vegetarian", you wouldn't be alive.
And still, being that that claim to be Hindu's DO marry dogs, snakes,
and other critters, who cares?
I am not "racist" by any means.
I do however find great humor in those that believe in "gawds", and
think that eating animal parts or it's liguids is evil.
Funny how many Indian/Hindu drink there own URINE "for "cleansing".
When I need to leave a piss, I carefully aim my penis into a
toilet/urinal... and flush that bodily waste into the sewer systems.
Why do Hindu's drink the stuff?
ker...@gmail.com
also saw decline of purity and strength of Brahminism - Islam and
xianity were able to gain easy foot-hold amidst them. Bengal, Panjab,
Kerala, coastal areas etc are good examples. In order for Hinduism to
retain its self-defensive vitality, brahminism and Kshtriaya have to
remain true to their Dharma. Whole vitality of Hindu society depends
on those 2 vital pillars. As soon as those pillars are subverted and
deviate from their dharma, people become namesake brahmins and
Kshtriyas - such a Hindu society can not withstand ideas brought by
Islam and xianity and other psecular ideologies.
Mudali
Vegetarianism issue is nota HINDU issue at all. Kshatria people were
not asked to be vegetarian at anytime. Only the people work in Hindu
temples were asked stop eating meat.
later many other castes stopped eating meat/fish and started to
pretend as HIGH caste.
Can any Hindu Historians tell why a low caste son of a FISHER-Woman's
son VEDA Vyas allowed to compile the VEDAS?
Later GYPSY arrivals created more troubles to Hindus! Blaming other
religions is not a point for Vegetarianism!
Our Hindu Champions are silent here why Rama or other HINDU kings went
on HUNTING? Did they kill the animals and fed them to dogs and cats?
pearl
> Humans eat meat for thousands of years and the ideologies developed
> by humans are contradicting NATURE.
Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease : The Cornell
China study
CAMPBELL T. C. ; PARPIA B. ; JUNSHI CHEN ;
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
ETATS-UNIS
Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, Chinese Academy of Preventive
Medicine, Beijing, CHINE
Abstract
Investigators collected and analyzed mortality data for >50 diseases, including
7 different cancers, from 65 counties and 130 villages in rural mainland China.
Blood, urine, food samples, and detailed dietary data were collected from
50 adults in each village and analyzed for a variety of nutritional, viral,
hormonal, and toxic chemical factors. In rural China, fat intake was less than
half that in the United States, and fiber intake was 3 times higher. Animal
protein intake was very low, only about 10% of the US intake. Mean serum
total cholesterol was 127 mg/dL in rural China versus 203 mg/dL for adults
aged 20-74 years in the United States. Coronary artery disease mortality was
16.7-fold greater for US men and 5.6-fold greater for US women than for
their Chinese counterparts. The combined coronary artery disease mortality
rates for both genders in rural China were inversely associated with the
frequency of intake of green vegetables and plasma erythrocyte
monounsaturated fatty acids, but positively associated with a combined
index of salt intake plus urinary sodium and plasma apolipoprotein B. These
apolipoproteins, in turn, are positively associated with animal protein intake
and the frequency of meat intake and inversely associated with plant protein,
legume, and light-colored vegetable intake. Rates of other diseases were also
correlated with dietary factors. There was no evidence of a threshold beyond
which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-
based foods in the diet.
The American journal of cardiology ISSN 0002-9149 CODEN AJCDAG
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679
Arindam Banerjee
> On 25 Dec, 08:02, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai
>
> Maharaj) wrote:
> > WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
>
> The practicing Hindu and the practicing Vegetarian in our office
> almost came to blows when the Hindu dispelled the Vegetarian's
> illusion about Hindus not eating meat. Our practicing Hindu explained
> that it is only some jatis and sannyasins who do not eat meat. The
> rest of them tuck into a nice healthy meat dish. The Vegetarian was
> very disappointed.
Ancient Hindus (who followed the inspirations from the Vedas and the
Vedangas, holy scriptures that is) ate meat when they had to - like
when the were living in forests and there was no other survival
option. Then, there was the occasional hunt, and the meat from the
hunt was eaten. Normally, their diet was composed of grains, fruits
and vegetables. On the whole, they ate sparingly for they valued
slimness, stamina and strength. For symbolic reasons - and their
spritual world was symbolic - many among them did not even eat fish or
eggs. For the first incarnation of Vishnu took the form of a fish, and
the egg represents the whole cosmos. Thus around 1978 in certain parts
of North India, I can say from my own experience, eating fish was
considered even more despicable than eating meat - however they had
relented on the egg front. Protein was obtained from milk products,
and lentils. Raising animals purely for slaughter was unknown - the
cows were for milking, and the bulls were for farmwork and breeding.
Elephants were for war, and camels were for transport. Buffaloes were
also for milk. When the animals died (tiger attack for the old ones,
or disease, or old age) the meat was eaten by the vultures, and the
skin often used for leather.
However, meat-eating did take place after the animal (a goat) was
sacrificed. Since otherwise there would be no meat-eating, at times
in the past the sacrifices became too numerous, and many animals
(usually goats, and sometimes buffaloes) were killed to provide food.
That was a gory spectacle, conducted by priests. It had to be done,
at least sometimes, to provide the public with martial spirit -
otherwise they would become too namby-pamby and thus fail on the
battlefield. There were atheistic types who hated this ritual of
sacrifice (today they eat their meat without needing to see any
butchery, those sights are conveniently withheld by our modern
systems) and so they remained atheists, and sincerely non-violent.
The Jains form the core of this group. Later on Buddhism also came on
to the scene, and won popularity by condemning sacrifice and meat-
eating. So the atheists and vegetarians in due course became
dominant, and the result was that Indians lost their martial spirit.
India was invaded by foreigners successfully in 1182 AD (prior to
this, the Greeks/Macedonians, Huns, Arabs had been thrown out) and
things have not been too good for Indians since! Unless, of course,
they sucked up to the ways of the foreigners and became their tools.
Buddhism (as opposed to Hinduism) has always been encouraged by the
foreigners; you always want those whom you want to dominate to be
meek, peace-loving, non-violent, etc. don't you?
Well, all human problems boil down to food first, and everything
second. Not just how much you get for sustenance, but what you
eat... Hindus have tried to use herbs and spices, and marvellous
vegetable cutting techniques, great cooking techniques, to make
vegetarian food tasty. Lots of vegetarian Hindu women have put in a
great deal of effort. And what is the result! The western and
westernised world uses some of those techniques to make meat tastier!
Hopefully, one day they will learn the basics of cooking vegetarian
dishes properly, with the correct techniques. Now that will be a
worthy goal. Yes, a lot of time will be spent preparing and cooking,
but in these days of high productivity time may not be such a big
issue for many - the results will be well worth it!
By the way, my dear mother is the greatest Hindu cook I know, and I am
not the only one to say this... I am glad to say, I have learnt some
tricks for her, and these cooking tricks have done me an universe of
good.
Arindam Banerjee.
uNmaiviLambi
> On Dec 25, 9:39 pm, Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> Ancient Hindus (who followed the inspirations from the Vedas and the
> Vedangas, holy scriptures that is) ate meat when they had to - like
> when the were living in forests and there was no other survival
> option. Then, there was the occasional hunt, and the meat from the
> hunt was eaten. Normally, their diet was composed of grains, fruits
> and vegetables. On the whole, they ate sparingly for they valued
> slimness, stamina and strength. For symbolic reasons - and their
> spritual world was symbolic - many among them did not even eat fish or
> eggs. For the first incarnation of Vishnu took the form of a fish, and
> the egg represents the whole cosmos. Thus around 1978 in certain parts
> of North India, I can say from my own experience, eating fish was
> considered even more despicable than eating meat - however they had
> relented on the egg front. Protein was obtained from milk products,
> and lentils. Raising animals purely for slaughter was unknown - the
> cows were for milking, and the bulls were for farmwork and breeding.
> Elephants were for war, and camels were for transport. Buffaloes were
> also for milk. When the animals died (tiger attack for the old ones,
> or disease, or old age) the meat was eaten by the vultures, and the
> skin often used for leather.
Excellent summary. Thanks. I would add 1) the goal is always
vegetarian, avoid any food that involves harm to any life 2)
recognition that many humans are addicted to flesh. They have
"concessions" to eat meat * ( permitted by shastra) till they can
rise to a higher level. It is important to remember they all
*subscribe to ahimsa food as the goal* but are often unable to follow
this goal. Warriors ( kshatriyas) are allowed to eat under special
circumstances as you said. Brahmanas and vaisyas are always vegetarian
> However, meat-eating did take place after the animal (a goat) was
> sacrificed. Since otherwise there would be no meat-eating, at times
> in the past the sacrifices became too numerous, and many animals
> (usually goats, and sometimes buffaloes) were killed to provide food.
> That was a gory spectacle, conducted by priests. It had to be done,
> at least sometimes, to provide the public with martial spirit -
> otherwise they would become too namby-pamby and thus fail on the
> battlefield. There were atheistic types who hated this ritual of
> sacrifice (today they eat their meat without needing to see any
> butchery, those sights are conveniently withheld by our modern
> systems) and so they remained atheists, and sincerely non-violent.
> The Jains form the core of this group. Later on Buddhism also came on
> to the scene, and won popularity by condemning sacrifice and meat-
> eating. So the atheists and vegetarians in due course became
> dominant, and the result was that Indians lost their martial spirit.
> India was invaded by foreigners successfully in 1182 AD (prior to
> this, the Greeks/Macedonians, Huns, Arabs had been thrown out) and
> things have not been too good for Indians since! Unless, of course,
> they sucked up to the ways of the foreigners and became their tools.
> Buddhism (as opposed to Hinduism) has always been encouraged by the
> foreigners; you always want those whom you want to dominate to be
> meek, peace-loving, non-violent, etc. don't you?
Brilliant summary again. In today's world and through history, meat
eaters are very aggressive. A society of total vegetarians will find
it hard. But weaponry have advanced so much. War is a battle of minds
now fortunately, unlike olden days. So in my view, even vegetarians
can survive and fight and kill if necessary, if mentally prepared. It
is a fact *that Jains and Buddhists weakened India* leading to alien
barbaric invasions.
Vedic rituals have the same lesson, that if necessary we should kill,
for greater good. Ahimsa is the goal. Killing for greater good is not
himsa
Dutch
Excellent summary. Thanks. I would add 1) the goal is always
vegetarian, avoid any food that involves harm to any life 2)
recognition that many humans are addicted to flesh.
1) Just because there is no "flesh" on your plate does not mean animals were
not harmed in it's production.
2) Why is that the food I enjoy is an "addiction" while yours is a blessing?
I think that you live by a double standard of self-righteousness.
That is not being holy, no matter how holy-sounding your pseudonym,
uNmaiviLambi
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
Kindly explain how eating vegetarian food kills life as much or more
than eating flesh. Life with consciousness and capacity to feel pain,
as much as humans do more or less, would be equivalent to human life.
That would apply to all "higher animals" such as
apes,monkeys,cows,pigs,dogs cats, caribous etc etc. Same would apply
to chicken etc although one could argue fish,shrimp, jellyfish are
less so but are still consciousness beings capable of pain. Anyway
there is ecological damage and then human health too, to take into
account, not just ethics. Humans are damaging their own health and the
environs and promote violence and insensitivity to life by eating
flesh
Arindam Banerjee
Thanks a lot for your appreciation. A note on war - in the past in
India we had dharmayuddha, or war between honourable people who fought
their best according to strict rules and left the outcome of battle
upon the will of the Gods. The last such great war is described in
the Mahabharata. In dharmayuddha which took place between the
kshatriyas, the other peoples not invovled were not harmed. Then there
was plain yuddha, or battle between honourable people and the bandits,
and there were absolutely no rules in such encounters. But this was on
a small scale, to counter invading barbarians or robbers. Thus, the
invasion of Alexander does not even get mention, though this
successors who attacked Indian soil on a much larger scale, to seek
revenge, do get mention. So on the whole the Indian populations
throughout Hindu rule were spared of the horrors of warfare.
Unfortunately, over time, the barbarians got more numerous and more
powerful, and when bandits (like Ghori) were given the status of
honourable people by PrithviRaj, there was big trouble, which lasts to
this day! The Western nations had similar concepts - sometimes
brightly as in knightly tournaments, but mostly they fought on
unscrupulous lines - right up to the nineteenth century. In the
nineteenth century the concept of honour in battle was given up, in
favour of the modern concept of total war, where there is no
distinction made between civilian and soldier. Total was justifies
nuclear war, chemical war, bio-chemical war, napalm, carpet-bombing,
mining, terrorism, guerilla warfare, suicide bombing etc. where loss
to life is indiscriminate. Then there is cold war, which is
essentially propaganda, slander, sanctions, etc. which is also both
disastrous and indiscriminate.
So in my view, even vegetarians
> can survive and fight and kill if necessary, if mentally prepared. It
> is a fact *that Jains and Buddhists weakened India* leading to alien
> barbaric invasions.
>
> Vedic rituals have the same lesson, that if necessary we should kill,
> for greater good. Ahimsa is the goal. Killing for greater good is not
> himsa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ravimpillay
''''''''''AHIMSA PARMO DHARMA ..........
HIMSA DHARMA THAIVA CHA''''''
Non violence is the greatest Dharma [ path of righteousness] ... but
Voilence against evil or potential evil is alson Dharma """\
sadly we indians have been hoodwinked by the cohorts of
Mahatma Gandi with the part of the shloka ....
regards
dh
>On Dec 29, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Excellent summary. Thanks. I would add 1) the goal is always
>> vegetarian, avoid any food that involves harm to any life 2)
>> recognition that many humans are addicted to flesh.
>>
>> 1) Just because there is no "flesh" on your plate does not mean animals were
>> not harmed in it's production.
>>
>> 2) Why is that the food I enjoy is an "addiction" while yours is a blessing?
>>
>> I think that you live by a double standard of self-righteousness.
>>
>> That is not being holy, no matter how holy-sounding your pseudonym,
>
>Kindly explain how eating vegetarian food kills life as much or more
>than eating flesh.
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>Life with consciousness and capacity to feel pain,
>as much as humans do more or less, would be equivalent to human life.
We can't afford to feel that way or other things would take
over, like rodents and bugs to begin with, and then bigger
meaner animals...
>That would apply to all "higher animals" such as
>apes,monkeys,cows,pigs,dogs cats, caribous etc etc. Same would apply
>to chicken etc
Then it's possible to appreciate the fact that many of those
animals have decent lives of positive value, even some who
are raised for humans to eat.
>although one could argue fish,shrimp, jellyfish are
>less so but are still consciousness beings capable of pain.
Why not consider the good things they experience as well?
>Anyway
>there is ecological damage and then human health too, to take into
>account, not just ethics. Humans are damaging their own health and the
>environs and promote violence and insensitivity to life by eating
>flesh
We could learn to appreciate the animals, and consider
how they are influence by humans.
uNmaiviLambi
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:52:54 -0800 (PST), uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
I have never heard of anything more unreasonable than this. While we
live, eat and try to survive, we all will unknowingly kill many living
beings. We have to take antibiotics and kill millions of bacteria too.
The real question is should we kill more and more just to eat and fill
our stomach or should we try to consciously avoid killing? Not just
for ethical reasons but for ecology and health as well.
Arindam Banerjee
Alas yes, that is true. At last we are beginning to realise what is
what. My main point is that atheism leads either to non-violence
(like the Jains, who are also very honourable people) or to total war
(like the modern nations and the terrorists, where civilians are not
spared). So horrible subjection to foreign banditry on one hand, and
ww2 (and many subsequent such) class disasters on the other! A strong
theistic culture leads to peace and prosperity for the masses, and a
noble and brave self-sacrificing leadership (kshatriya type knights,
samurai, etc.). I know this now sounds hopelessly antiquated, what
with children being born and bred to video games encouraging all sorts
of killing and no sense of honour in battle, but the concept of honour
in warfare did serve the human race very well in the past, in many
different countries.
dh
>On Dec 31, 9:08 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:52:54 -0800 (PST), uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 5:10 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> in order to be successful:
>>
>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
>I have never heard of anything more unreasonable than this.
It's all facts. The fact that the facts disagree with what you
want to believe causes cognitive dissonance in your brain, and
that's very uncomfortable so you try to reject them.
>While we
>live, eat and try to survive, we all will unknowingly kill many living
>beings.
True. But does anyone care about the billions of microbes
who die because of burning cigarettes, campfires, wood
stoves etc...? No. We don't care about the things who die
because we inhale them either, unless they make us sick
before we manage to kill them off. Sometimes they kill people,
and *then* people care. Do they care about the billions of
microbeings? Of course not, but one human down and there
is often great sorrow.
>We have to take antibiotics and kill millions of bacteria too.
Yes, and still they abound. My brother did point out that there's
a great decrease in the number of bugs around compared to
10-20 years ago though, at least in the area we lived in then.
Maybe there are less microbes than there used to be too but
it's harder to actually see the differance than it is with the bugs.
>The real question is should we kill more and more just to eat and fill
>our stomach or should we try to consciously avoid killing?
If the "real" question is out of consideration for the animals
then we need to ask whether their lives are of positive value
or not. Some aren't. Some are. Nearly all could be imo.
>Not just for ethical reasons but for ecology and health as well.
Those are different issues.
Azure
No, same with the Bacteria, they "Mutate.
Maybe less Bugs "Over All", but those which are around are "More
Virulent", and resistent to known methods of erradication.
But the concept goes even further.
What of the Verdrigris of Copper.
Malachite, Azurite, Chrysicolla, "Living Rocks", which man murders
daily.
>
> >The real question is should we kill more and more just to eat and fill
> >our stomach or should we try to consciously avoid killing?
The true Basis of Religion/Morality.
>
> If the "real" question is out of consideration for the animals
> then we need to ask whether their lives are of positive value
> or not. Some aren't. Some are. Nearly all could be imo.
Some Are, Some Aren't?
All are part of the Natural Order.
Each "Animal" has its "Code of Ethics"!
>
> >Not just for ethical reasons but for ecology and health as well.
>
> Those are different issues.
Yep.
dh
I'm not familiar with that stuff. Iron bacteria is what they called the
red growth that gets in water wells. Years ago I remember thinking
it might keep the growth down if people would flash the inside of
wells with UV light on a regular basis, and recently I found that it
has become a common thing to do that.
>> >The real question is should we kill more and more just to eat and fill
>> >our stomach or should we try to consciously avoid killing?
>
>The true Basis of Religion/Morality.
>>
>> If the "real" question is out of consideration for the animals
>> then we need to ask whether their lives are of positive value
>> or not. Some aren't. Some are. Nearly all could be imo.
>
>Some Are, Some Aren't?
For example hens in open houses generally have decent lives of
positive value, but hens kept in small cages generally do not, imo.
>All are part of the Natural Order.
That certainly doesn't guarantee them a life of positive value,
though some are and some aren't...
>Each "Animal" has its "Code of Ethics"!
To whatever extent, they do show that they're capable of
having some consideration for others.
uNmaiviLambi
> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
> Your premise is self-serving and plainly wrong. Which vegetarian food?
> Which meat? Produced where and how with what inputs? How far is it
> transported? What amount of it is consumed? I have lived on a
> self-sufficient farm and I would put my footprint at that time up
> against ANY vegan's.
Looks like you are confusing vegans with Hindu vegetarians. Hindu
vegetariaism is based on food with no harm to animals. Hence milk and
dairy are allowed. It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
Azure
Still Death, still a sensitive will acknowledge the hurt and in some way
atone.
Such is the way of Nature.
The Weasels, Minks and Man are an exception, they revel in blood.
Dutch
> Your premise is self-serving and plainly wrong. Which vegetarian food?
> Which meat? Produced where and how with what inputs? How far is it
> transported? What amount of it is consumed? I have lived on a
> self-sufficient farm and I would put my footprint at that time up
> against ANY vegan's.
Looks like you are confusing vegans with Hindu vegetarians. Hindu
vegetariaism is based on food with no harm to animals. Hence milk and
dairy are allowed.
......................
Animals are exploited, and harmed in the dairy industry.
It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
.....................
Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive, wheat farming
which is highly herbicide intensive, and rice farming which often causes the
destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for harvest.
Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large machines.
Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and non-vegetarian
foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving myth
perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
pearl
> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
> .....................
>
> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the etc.
> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive, wheat farming
> which is highly herbicide intensive,
Organic too?
> and rice farming which often causes the
> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for harvest.
Support this claim with evidence.
> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large machines.
Ditto.
> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and non-vegetarian
Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability and
abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving myth
> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above, ditch.
dh
>On Jan 1, 10:07 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>
>> Your premise is self-serving and plainly wrong. Which vegetarian food?
>> Which meat? Produced where and how with what inputs? How far is it
>> transported? What amount of it is consumed? I have lived on a
>> self-sufficient farm and I would put my footprint at that time up
>> against ANY vegan's.
>
>
>Looks like you are confusing vegans with Hindu vegetarians. Hindu
>vegetariaism is based on food with no harm to animals. Hence milk and
>dairy are allowed. It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
>meat with life harmed in banana production!!
Only because the life harmed in banana production is not
livestock who experience their lives only because they are
raised for food, but instead it's wild animals who are simply
killed because humans raise bananas.
>You are referring to
>worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
>> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
>> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
>> .....................
>>
>> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
>> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
>
> A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the etc.
False generalization.
>> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive, wheat
>> farming
>> which is highly herbicide intensive,
>
> Organic too?
Not really relevant here, organic herbicides kill too, they're just less
damaging to the soil.
>> and rice farming which often causes the
>> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for harvest.
>
> Support this claim with evidence.
Been done.
>
>> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
>> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large machines.
>
> Ditto.
Also been done.
>> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and non-vegetarian
>
> Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability and
> abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
False, self-serving generalization.
>> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving myth
>> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
>
> Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above, ditch.
Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
uNmaiviLambi
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jan 1, 10:07 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Animals are exploited, and harmed in the dairy industry.
Life is impossible without consciously or unconsciously harming living
beings. It is wrong to equate harm that may occur in dairy production
with killing an animal such as a pig or a cow!
What maters is how we can minimise all harm for 1) ethics 2) ecology
3) human health.
Simple. No need to waffle
Dutch
"uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
On Jan 8, 1:32 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Animals are exploited, and harmed in the dairy industry.
Life is impossible without consciously or unconsciously harming living
beings.
------------------
Quite right, so what is this I keep hearing about cruelty free lifestyles?
It is wrong to equate harm that may occur in dairy production
with killing an animal such as a pig or a cow!
------------------
What do you think happens to cows once their production drops off? What do
you think happens to male cattle in dairy breeding programs?
What maters is how we can minimise all harm for 1) ethics 2) ecology
3) human health.
Simple. No need to waffle
-----------------
Simple ideas appeal to simple minds.
Dutch
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:57 -0800 (PST), uNmaiviLambi
> <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 1, 10:07 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>>
>>> Your premise is self-serving and plainly wrong. Which vegetarian food?
>>> Which meat? Produced where and how with what inputs? How far is it
>>> transported? What amount of it is consumed? I have lived on a
>>> self-sufficient farm and I would put my footprint at that time up
>>> against ANY vegan's.
>>
>>
>>Looks like you are confusing vegans with Hindu vegetarians. Hindu
>>vegetariaism is based on food with no harm to animals. Hence milk and
>>dairy are allowed. It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
>>meat with life harmed in banana production!!
>
> Only because the life harmed in banana production is not
> livestock who experience their lives only because they are
> raised for food
Absolutely irrelevant.
uNmaiviLambi
> Quite right, so what is this I keep hearing about cruelty free lifestyles?
Cruelty should never be consciously practiced. What happens inevitably
is one thing but deliberate violence when alternatives are plenty is
another. We therefore have vaisvadeva worship ( part of our
affirmation to live a life of love and reparation) where we pay homage
and salute all living beings we may have harmed consciously or
unconsciously during our life. Our intention is *always to never harm
life as much as possible*. Those who take to sainthood therefore often
survive on fruits and nuts only and never even eat rice etc. We have
to live a life of love and that is real religion. Without real love in
practice, religion is meaningless
Killing animals for their meat is violence. There is no other
explanation. No wonder there is so much violence all the time
> What do you think happens to cows once their production drops off? What do
> you think happens to male cattle in dairy breeding programs?
That is the problem. Profit making dictates such methods. Humane
treatment would not allow killing them and incinerating them once
their utility is over. All that killing is because of the same
mindset. They put down dogs and cats when they are no longer useful
and are inconvenient. For us killing them for any reason is unethical
except when they threaten us.
> What maters is how we can minimise all harm for 1) ethics 2) ecology
> 3) human health.
>
> Simple. No need to waffle
> -----------------
>
> Simple ideas appeal to simple minds.
Love is simple. May evade complicated minds. Please consider ecology,
health and ethics in all this, not just one aspect. Major contribution
to global warming is reckless meat eating
Dutch
> Quite right, so what is this I keep hearing about cruelty free lifestyles?
Cruelty should never be consciously practiced. What happens inevitably
is one thing but deliberate violence when alternatives are plenty is
another. We therefore have vaisvadeva worship ( part of our
affirmation to live a life of love and reparation) where we pay homage
and salute all living beings we may have harmed consciously or
unconsciously during our life. Our intention is *always to never harm
life as much as possible*. Those who take to sainthood therefore often
survive on fruits and nuts only and never even eat rice etc. We have
to live a life of love and that is real religion. Without real love in
practice, religion is meaningless
Killing animals for their meat is violence. There is no other
explanation. No wonder there is so much violence all the time.
------------------------------
This is the fallacy of your thinking. Killing animals is violence PERIOD.
The animal doesn't care if you eat it's flesh after its dead. If you kill
voles in grain harvesting, frogs in rice harvesting, birds in orchard
spraying, etc etc.. the animals suffer and die all the same. My eating of
meat does not make me more likely to harm any person or pet or wild animal,
not in the least. That is highly insulting and untrue. If both of us were
stranded in the wild, BOTH of us would kill and eat squirrels to survive if
necessary.
> What do you think happens to cows once their production drops off? What do
> you think happens to male cattle in dairy breeding programs?
That is the problem. Profit making dictates such methods.
-----------------------
Not only profit, viability.
Humane
treatment would not allow killing them and incinerating them once
their utility is over. All that killing is because of the same
mindset. They put down dogs and cats when they are no longer useful
and are inconvenient. For us killing them for any reason is unethical
except when they threaten us.
----------------------------
That's just great, you get to have your pie-in-the-sky idealism while others
do the dirty work.
> What maters is how we can minimise all harm for 1) ethics 2) ecology
> 3) human health.
>
> Simple. No need to waffle
> -----------------
>
> Simple ideas appeal to simple minds.
Love is simple. May evade complicated minds. Please consider ecology,
health and ethics in all this, not just one aspect. Major contribution
to global warming is reckless meat eating.
-------------------
Love is an aspect of God. God in her infiinite wisdom created a world where
animals eat one another. You're living in a fantasy world, not the real one.
Your world is one that comforts you by placing most other people in the role
of some kind of barbarism. It is very artificial and unGod-like.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >
> >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
> >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
> >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
> >> .....................
> >>
> >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
> >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
> >
> > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the etc.
>
> False generalization.
How so?
> >> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive, wheat
> >> farming
> >> which is highly herbicide intensive,
> >
> > Organic too?
>
> Not really relevant here, organic herbicides kill too, they're just less
> damaging to the soil.
'Organic, no-till agriculture does not use toxic herbicides and chemical
fertilizers. Instead, it incorporates cover cropping as a critical component
to the system that adds both nutrients and a weed barrier in the form of
mulch. In a no-till organic system, a cover crop such as hairy vetch is
planted in the early fall on a field. In late spring, as soon as this vetch has
flowered, a single tractor equipped with both an implement to knock
down the vetch (photograph above) and an implement to seed another
crop (corn, for example), passes through the field. Bacteria associated
with the vetch, because it is a legume, add nitrogen to the soil, providing
the corn with enough to grow and eliminating the "need" for nitrogen
fertilizer. The vetch provides a mulch (side photo) so weeds cannot
compete with the corn, and the "need" for herbicides is nonexistent.
This is particularly important in light of the predictions that increased
CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to faster weed growth.
At Rodale, experiments with this no-till organic system are revealing the
immense benefits of combining the no-till approach with cover cropping.
Both the water holding capacity and the water drainage capacity increase
with this system because of the greater soil aggregation and organic
matter content. The increased humus (organic matter [carbon] that is in
a very stable form) in the soil provides carbon sequestration. A crop's
ability to deal with weather extremes is increasingly important in this
era of climate change and this ability is directly related to the soil health.
Solutions to dealing with changing weather patterns should focus on
soil health as this does, not on the development of genetically modified
"drought-resistant" plant varieties. This system holds promise not only
for grains, but for transplanted vegetables as well.
..'
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/environment/index.htm
> >> and rice farming which often causes the
> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for harvest.
> >
> > Support this claim with evidence.
>
> Been done.
Where? You're lying.
> >> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
> >> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large machines.
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Also been done.
Ditto.
> >> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and non-vegetarian
> >
> > Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability and
> > abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
>
> False, self-serving generalization.
Explain how.
> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving myth
> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
> >
> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above, ditch.
>
> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
Link?
uNmaiviLambi
> Love is an aspect of God. God in her infiinite wisdom created a world where
> animals eat one another. You're living in a fantasy world, not the real one.
> Your world is one that comforts you by placing most other people in the role
> of some kind of barbarism. It is very artificial and unGod-like.
Why not we eat human babies too?
uNmaiviLambi
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in messagenews:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> How so?
Thanks Pearlji
Namasthe
Azure
>
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jan 8, 1:32 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Animals are exploited, and harmed in the dairy industry.
>
> Life is impossible without consciously or unconsciously harming living
> beings.
> ------------------
It is the inner intent which matters most.
Those who know Karmic Law, feel the violation of "Killing", "Anything",
in an overt killing, they seek ways of atonement.
Those who don't understand show their ignorance, it does not phase them,
they go on their way as if nothing had happened.
In today's world like it or not it is more "Moral" to buy dead chicken
or cow, than kill one yourself.
Natures Beasts of the World are a Treasure, their murder is a violation
unless it is a matter of self defense.
Azure
>
> On Jan 9, 1:43 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Quite right, so what is this I keep hearing about cruelty free lifestyles?
>
> Cruelty should never be consciously practiced.
That is the Law.
Azure
>
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jan 9, 1:43 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Quite right, so what is this I keep hearing about cruelty free lifestyles?
Especially from Homophobic Hatemongers.
Azure
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> > >
> > >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
> > >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
> > >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
> > >> .....................
> > >>
> > >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
> > >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
> > >
> > > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the etc.
> >
> > False generalization.
>
> How so?
He likes Blood Sports.
Azure
They hate me for saying it, but the Bible say's "They ate Jesus"!
That's why the Sepulcher was empty.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> >
>> >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
>> >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
>> >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
>> >> .....................
>> >>
>> >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of
>> >> petroleum
>> >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral
>> >> impact,
>> >
>> > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the
>> > etc.
>>
>> False generalization.
>
> How so?
Google "Polyface Farm".
Not practical for large scale farming.
>> >> and rice farming which often causes the
>> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for
>> >> harvest.
>> >
>> > Support this claim with evidence.
>>
>> Been done.
>
> Where? You're lying.
You know where, YOU are lying.
>
>> >> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
>> >> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large
>> >> machines.
>> >
>> > Ditto.
>>
>> Also been done.
>
> Ditto.
Right.
>
>> >> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and
>> >> non-vegetarian
>> >
>> > Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability
>> > and
>> > abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
>>
>> False, self-serving generalization.
>
> Explain how.
The comparison fails to consider the specific characteristics of food.
"Rice" is not a homogeneous commodity, neither is meat.
>> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving
>> >> myth
>> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
>> >
>> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above, ditch.
>>
>> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
>
> Link?
To your lack of objectivity? Google any one of ten thousand posts by you.
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
"Azure" <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote in message
news:iMednTa7SfPl5fTU...@posted.gcicommunications...
You need another hobby.
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:gka43q$1ps$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >> >
> >> >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
> >> >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
> >> >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
> >> >> .....................
> >> >>
> >> >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of
> >> >> petroleum
> >> >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral
> >> >> impact,
> >> >
> >> > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the
> >> > etc.
> >>
> >> False generalization.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Google "Polyface Farm".
Huh. Bring whatever you think supports your case into the forum.
Why not?
> >> >> and rice farming which often causes the
> >> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for
> >> >> harvest.
> >> >
> >> > Support this claim with evidence.
> >>
> >> Been done.
> >
> > Where? You're lying.
>
> You know where, YOU are lying.
I've seen NO *evidence*. How much longer are you going to play dodge?
> >> >> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and their
> >> >> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large
> >> >> machines.
> >> >
> >> > Ditto.
> >>
> >> Also been done.
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Right.
Ditto.
> >> >> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and
> >> >> non-vegetarian
> >> >
> >> > Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability and
> >> > abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
> >>
> >> False, self-serving generalization.
> >
> > Explain how.
>
> The comparison fails to consider the specific characteristics of food.
> "Rice" is not a homogeneous commodity, neither is meat.
Go back to the top of this post. Do not pass Go, and collect Nothing.
> >> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving
> >> >> myth
> >> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
> >> >
> >> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above, ditch.
> >>
> >> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
> >
> > Link?
>
> To your lack of objectivity? Google any one of ten thousand posts by you.
To a link or links that support your claims. Attacking the person won't do.
pearl
4X4. Gas. Combats. Rifle. Ammo. Beer. Knives. Gas. Refrigeration. Fuel.
I like foraging. :).
pearl
> How so?
Thanks Pearlji
Namasthe
---
Namasthe Tripji! ;)
uNmaiviLambi
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jan 9, 3:35 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Why not we eat human babies too?
>
> With respect, whoever you are, you need to get help.
Any one who supports eating any dead carcass persistently certainly
needs to examine his ethics and morality
Dutch
"uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
needs to examine his ethics and morality.
-----------------------------
You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible moral
issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses? You on the other
hand appear to be having difficulty understanding the moral difference
between eating chicken and eating human babies.
I'm completely serious dear friend, you need to try to rethink this whole
thing. The path you're on is not a constructive one, not for you, not for
anyone around you.
Would make a difference if I spoke to you in the secret code? Namasthe
Tripji.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:gkcd0p$1nn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:gka43q$1ps$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> >> news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> >> >
>> >> >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
>> >> >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
>> >> >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
>> >> >> .....................
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of
>> >> >> petroleum
>> >> >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral
>> >> >> impact,
>> >> >
>> >> > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the
>> >> > etc.
>> >>
>> >> False generalization.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> Google "Polyface Farm".
>
> Huh. Bring whatever you think supports your case into the forum.
Don't tell me what to do. I am not posting for your benefit, I am putting
ideas there for anyone who reads this from the archives who may genuinely
interested in learning and growing.
>
>> >> >> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive,
>> >> >> wheat
>> >> >> farming
>> >> >> which is highly herbicide intensive,
>> >> >
>> >> > Organic too?
>> >>
>> >> Not really relevant here, organic herbicides kill too, they're just
>> >> less
>> >> damaging to the soil.
>> >
>> > 'Organic, no-till agriculture does not use toxic herbicides and
>> > chemical
>> > fertilizers. <snip>
No, toxic organic compunds..
>> Not practical for large scale farming.
>
> Why not?
Cost, labour intensity.
>
>> >> >> and rice farming which often causes the
>> >> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for
>> >> >> harvest.
>> >> >
>> >> > Support this claim with evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Been done.
>> >
>> > Where? You're lying.
>>
>> You know where, YOU are lying.
>
> I've seen NO *evidence*. How much longer are you going to play dodge?
You *HAVE* seen the evidence, how much longer are you going to lie about
that?
>> >> >> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large
>> >> >> machines.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ditto.
>> >>
>> >> Also been done.
>> >
>> > Ditto.
>>
>> Right.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> >> >> Simply put, the clear distinction between vegetarian and
>> >> >> non-vegetarian
>> >> >
>> >> > Is vast in every respect, from attitude to inputs, to sustainability
>> >> > and
>> >> > abundance or destruction and famine; harmony with nature, or death.
>> >>
>> >> False, self-serving generalization.
>> >
>> > Explain how.
>>
>> The comparison fails to consider the specific characteristics of food.
>> "Rice" is not a homogeneous commodity, neither is meat.
>
> Go back to the top of this post. Do not pass Go, and collect Nothing.
Predictably you are failing to address the fundamental fallacy. "vegetarian
and non-vegetarian" is YOUR hangup, YOUR way of dividing the world into good
and evil so it makes you feel important. I'm saying this, once again, for
that potential open-minded reader. When I grew my own food and raised my own
chickens, pigs and cattle, this statement: "vast in every respect, from
attitude to inputs, to sustainability and abundance or destruction and
famine; harmony with nature, or death" applies to my life then, NOT to my
years as an urban vegetarian.
All I ask is you get this right.
>> >> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving
>> >> >> myth
>> >> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above,
>> >> > ditch.
>> >>
>> >> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
>> >
>> > Link?
>>
>> To your lack of objectivity? Google any one of ten thousand posts by you.
>
> To a link or links that support your claims. Attacking the person won't
> do.
I made my case. I do appreciate that you have decided to try and bite your
tongue and cut back on the incessant name calling. But as I know you know,
calling me immoral because I can tell the difference between livestock and
human babies is attacking the person in the most insulting and demeaning
way.
uNmaiviLambi
> You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible moral
> issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses?
I just asked you to examine your morality. If eating dead carcasses
persistently is not a moral issue, what is? I think eating too much
fries and becoming obese, drinking alcohol excessively, abusing drugs
are moral issues! What about regularly eating dead animals?
> Would make a difference if I spoke to you in the secret code? Namasthe
> Tripji.
Namasthe!
Dutch
"uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
On Jan 11, 3:37 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible
> moral
> issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses?
I just asked you to examine your morality.
------------------
I have been doing so for decades, always striving to be objective. I ask you
to do the same.
If eating dead carcasses
persistently is not a moral issue, what is?
-------------------
On what basis is eating dead animals a moral issue? (did you think the word
"carcass" would make a difference?)
You're confusing your personal aversions with morality.
I think eating too much
fries and becoming obese, drinking alcohol excessively, abusing drugs
are moral issues!
-------------------
Those are primarily health issues.
What about regularly eating dead animals?
------------------
I can see you are unable to discriminate between health and morality, for
starters.
> Would make a difference if I spoke to you in the secret code? Namasthe
> Tripji.
Namasthe!
Why not just speak English?
habshi
Dutch
> of course the male calves are killed as they are surplus
Unceremoniously I'm guessing. Oops, so much for the cruelty free dairy
industry.
pearl
Anyone reading this is fast learning that you can't support your 'ideas'.
> >> >> >> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive,
> >> >> >> wheat
> >> >> >> farming
> >> >> >> which is highly herbicide intensive,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Organic too?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really relevant here, organic herbicides kill too, they're just
> >> >> less
> >> >> damaging to the soil.
> >> >
> >> > 'Organic, no-till agriculture does not use toxic herbicides and
> >> > chemical fertilizers. <snip>
>
> No, toxic organic compunds..
In conventional agriculture, certainly. If you were in the least bit truly
concerned about collateral deaths, instead of trying to club over the
head with that those who do really care, you would politely remind
them (as if we really need reminding) that in conventional agriculture
chemicals are used which are highly toxic to both wildlife and people,
and that we should choose organic produce and/or grow our own.
But no, instead you promote the consumption of the flesh of animals
raised and killed for that purpose.. ethics, wildlife, health be damned.
> >> Not practical for large scale farming.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Cost, labour intensity.
Nonsense.
> >> >> >> and rice farming which often causes the
> >> >> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for
> >> >> >> harvest.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Support this claim with evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Been done.
> >> >
> >> > Where? You're lying.
> >>
> >> You know where, YOU are lying.
> >
> > I've seen NO *evidence*. How much longer are you going to play dodge?
>
> You *HAVE* seen the evidence, how much longer are you going to lie about
> that?
If I "*HAVE* seen the evidence", then prove it by showing "it" to us here.
Don't, and you're continuing to show everyone just how dishonest you are.
Ditto.
What were these chickens, pigs and cattle fed? Specifically in winter.
> >> >> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self serving
> >> >> >> myth
> >> >> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above,
> >> >> > ditch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
> >> >
> >> > Link?
> >>
> >> To your lack of objectivity? Google any one of ten thousand posts by you.
> >
> > To a link or links that support your claims. Attacking the person won't
> > do.
>
> I made my case. I do appreciate that you have decided to try and bite your
> tongue and cut back on the incessant name calling. But as I know you know,
> calling me immoral because I can tell the difference between livestock and
> human babies is attacking the person in the most insulting and demeaning
> way.
Your moral failing is that you disregard the interests of other sentient beings.
You've failed to support your 'case'.
dh
>On Jan 11, 3:37 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible moral
>> issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses?
>
>I just asked you to examine your morality. If eating dead carcasses
>persistently is not a moral issue, what is? I think eating too much
>fries and becoming obese, drinking alcohol excessively, abusing drugs
>are moral issues! What about regularly eating dead animals?
Doing so contributes to life for such animals in the future of course.
So if you think some livestock have lives of positive value and you
feel good about contributing to more, then it's morally good to eat
them. If you think others have lives of negative value then it would
be morally better not to eat them. It's pretty easy.
Dutch
People reading this know how to use Google. I don't find it necessary to
copy and paste for them.
>
>> >> >> >> especially tropical fruit which is highly pesticide intensive,
>> >> >> >> wheat
>> >> >> >> farming
>> >> >> >> which is highly herbicide intensive,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Organic too?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not really relevant here, organic herbicides kill too, they're just
>> >> >> less
>> >> >> damaging to the soil.
>> >> >
>> >> > 'Organic, no-till agriculture does not use toxic herbicides and
>> >> > chemical fertilizers. <snip>
>>
>> No, toxic organic compunds..
>
> In conventional agriculture, certainly. If you were in the least bit
> truly
> concerned about collateral deaths, instead of trying to club over the
> head with that those who do really care, you would politely remind
> them (as if we really need reminding) that in conventional agriculture
> chemicals are used which are highly toxic to both wildlife and people,
> and that we should choose organic produce and/or grow our own.
> But no, instead you promote the consumption of the flesh of animals
> raised and killed for that purpose.. ethics, wildlife, health be damned.
The only reason that "clubbing over the head" with the reality of collateral
deaths is necessary is because the moral conclusions reached by the vegan
philsophy necessarily ignore them.
>
>> >> Not practical for large scale farming.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Cost, labour intensity.
>
> Nonsense.
You're not a farmer. You don't understand no-till farming.
>
>> >> >> >> and rice farming which often causes the
>> >> >> >> destruction of many amphibious animals when draining fields for
>> >> >> >> harvest.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Support this claim with evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Been done.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where? You're lying.
>> >>
>> >> You know where, YOU are lying.
>> >
>> > I've seen NO *evidence*. How much longer are you going to play dodge?
>>
>> You *HAVE* seen the evidence, how much longer are you going to lie about
>> that?
>
> If I "*HAVE* seen the evidence", then prove it by showing "it" to us here.
Why are you lying?
> Don't, and you're continuing to show everyone just how dishonest you are.
More of your self-serving prattle.
>
>> >> >> >> Many small animals like moles and voles live in farm fields, and
>> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> populations are decimated by the repeated incursions of large
>> >> >> >> machines.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ditto.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also been done.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ditto.
>> >>
>> >> Right.
>> >
>> > Ditto.
>
> Ditto.
Glad you agree.
Hay, barley, corn, wheat, all grown on our farm. The pigs especially liked
the buttermilk.
Our own food also all came from the farm, except the salt.
Vegetarian vs non-vegetarian food is a false dichotomy, it's simplistic and
mainly serves this quasi-religious agenda you have lost your mind over.
>> >> >> >> foods with respect to animal suffering is a convenient self
>> >> >> >> serving
>> >> >> >> myth
>> >> >> >> perpetrated by narrow-minded food bigots like you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Let's see you support your convenient self-serving myths above,
>> >> >> > ditch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Been done, to death, but only for the open-minded, not you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Link?
>> >>
>> >> To your lack of objectivity? Google any one of ten thousand posts by
>> >> you.
>> >
>> > To a link or links that support your claims. Attacking the person
>> > won't
>> > do.
>>
>> I made my case. I do appreciate that you have decided to try and bite
>> your
>> tongue and cut back on the incessant name calling. But as I know you
>> know,
>> calling me immoral because I can tell the difference between livestock
>> and
>> human babies is attacking the person in the most insulting and demeaning
>> way.
>
> Your moral failing is that you disregard the interests of other sentient
> beings.
We all choose our interests over the interests of other sentient beings,
it's the way the world works. You have parlayed an aversion to reality into
a full-blown neurosis.
> You've failed to support your 'case'.
You are incapable of listening, so you wouldn't know.
I'm finished with you now.
Dutch
It's easy, and morally bankrupt. The act of putting a price on animals'
heads disqualifies you from taking credit for their lives.
Azure
Depends on how it died.
Azure
I do far more than your anal retentive mind ever thought of.
stop letting books do it.
Got Nature, it tells the story I read, then mans "Books", then my own
personal visions on how it is all connected.
You are the product of the Druid Brainwashing Machine, not I!
Azure
Got one, proving why the Gi Diva are not an Abomination before God.
Azure
Hunting, gotta get that Buck, if it don't got Antlers, hide it in the
trunk till ya get home.
>
> I like foraging. :).
If you engage in this thread then answer this, Grains Berries, and
Flowers or do you include Roots, and Tubers?
What the Plant "Gives" is far different than "Taking its Life, for your
Pleasure".
Azure
Why, no different than the stone age Bigotry used to support Genocide
Against Gay's.
If it was Healthy and died of a sudden death with no disease, people
used to find such quite goods eats.
Why kill something else, there is meat right there.
With the Over Crowding in the World, why limit "Love" to just a
Relationship between Man and Woman.
There is enough people, we do not need to "Be Fruitful and Multiply".
Azure
>
> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jan 11, 4:16 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not we eat human babies too?
> >
> > With respect, whoever you are, you need to get help.
>
> Any one who supports eating any dead carcass persistently certainly
> needs to examine his ethics and morality.
> -----------------------------
>
> You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible moral
> issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses? You on the other
> hand appear to be having difficulty understanding the moral difference
> between eating chicken and eating human babies.
No, you do!
There isn't one!
Azure
>
> On Jan 11, 3:37 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible moral
> > issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses?
>
> I just asked you to examine your morality. If eating dead carcasses
> persistently is not a moral issue, what is?
His right to wander through life Killing anything he wants, just cook it
afterwards and eat it, that makes everything all right.
That is Atonement for the Life you took.
Azure
>
> of course the male calves are killed as they are surplus
Life is but Surplus, something you can terminate at will.
No wonder your such a staunch "Beef Eater".
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:gkfhmc$63u$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:gkdmjk$h8u$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >> >> >> >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of
> >> >> >> >> petroleum
> >> >> >> >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral
> >> >> >> >> impact,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and
> >> >> >> > the etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> False generalization.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How so?
> >> >>
> >> >> Google "Polyface Farm".
> >> >
> >> > Huh. Bring whatever you think supports your case into the forum.
> >>
> >> Don't tell me what to do. I am not posting for your benefit, I am putting
> >> ideas there for anyone who reads this from the archives who may genuinely
> >> interested in learning and growing.
> >
> > Anyone reading this is fast learning that you can't support your 'ideas'.
>
> People reading this know how to use Google. I don't find it necessary to
> copy and paste for them.
> > What were these chickens, pigs and cattle fed? Specifically in winter.
>
> Hay, barley, corn, wheat, all grown on our farm. The pigs especially liked
> the buttermilk.
Hay, barley, corn, wheat, all "involve the input of petroleum products", etc,
and grain is fed at many times the rate needed to provide nutrition directly..
..
> > Your moral failing is that you disregard the interests of other sentient
> > beings.
>
> We all choose our interests over the interests of other sentient beings,
We don't demand that animals are raised and killed for our 'pleasure'.
> > You've failed to support your 'case'.
>
> You are incapable of listening, so you wouldn't know.
Listen to what? Yet again you've failed to support your claims.
> I'm finished with you now.
Never even got started, but you're finished, period, dodgy ditch.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >
> > "Azure" <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote in message news:iMednTe7SfOH5fTU...@posted.gcicommunications...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gk62ge$65p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> > > > >
> > > > > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > > > news:gk4rl4$c2o$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:gk46mr$fcr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> It is unreasonable to compare killing animals for
> > > > > >> meat with life harmed in banana production!! You are referring to
> > > > > >> worms getting crushed or what during banana production?
> > > > > >> .....................
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Fruit, vegetable and grain production all involve the input of petroleum
> > > > > >> products for storage and transportation, which has a collateral impact,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A fraction of resource inputs required for raising animals, and the etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > False generalization.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > He likes Blood Sports.
> >
> > 4X4. Gas. Combats. Rifle. Ammo. Beer. Knives. Gas. Refrigeration. Fuel.
>
> Hunting, gotta get that Buck, if it don't got Antlers, hide it in the
> trunk till ya get home.
Yep.
> > I like foraging. :).
>
> If you engage in this thread then answer this, Grains Berries, and
> Flowers or do you include Roots, and Tubers?
> What the Plant "Gives" is far different than "Taking its Life, for your
> Pleasure".
Agreed. However looking back on human history (see below), I would
much rather this consumption of plants to enable survival and evolution
than animal flesh, as is generally believed. I think you probably concur.
'Multiple lines of evidence now indicate that the ability to digest large
quantities of starch may have been a crucial adaptation in human evolution
-- providing the calories needed to grow large, cognitively-sophisticated
brains capable of complex language and social cooperation. This idea is
a serious departure from the leading hypothesis that carnivory (via hunting)
was the dietary shift needed to support large brains in early humans.
The breakthrough study, lead by George Perry of Arizona State University
and Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz
( http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/abs/ng2123.html ), first
demonstrates that individuals with more copies of the AMY1 gene tend to
have higher levels of amylase in their saliva. The researchers then sampled
a suite of high- and low-starch populations spanning cultures world-wide --
Hadza hunter-gathers who survive primarily on roots and tubers, and two
agricultural populations (Japanese and European Americans) comprised the
high-starch sample. Low-starch populations, of which there are considerably
few, included rainforest hunter-gatherers (Biaka and Mbuti) and pastoralists
(Datog and Yakut). In line with expectations, mean AMY1 copy number
was greater in the high-starch compared to low-starch populations.
Notably, there was no geographic pattern in AMY1 copy number to
suggest that populations closer to one another have more similar AMY1
copy numbers than populations that are further apart-- this pattern would be
expected if variation in AMY1 is driven largely by neutral genetic changes
(genetic drift). Instead, the results suggest that variation in AMY1 is related
to ecological adaptations in diet. Perry and Dominy hypothesize that natural
selection is driving differences in AMY1 copy number. Their results do
provide some compelling evidence for natural selection at the AMY1 locus,
but the authors cautiously note that the jury is still out on this question --
pending additional data of course.
Shedding some light on the evolutionary history of AMY1, Perry and
Dominy also looked at AMY1 variation in chimps and bonobos, our close
genetic relatives. Their primary diet-- ripe fruit-- contains very little starch,
leading the researchers to predict low numbers of AMY1 in these apes.
Indeed, the data indicate that chimps and bonobos have, at most,
2 functional copies of AMY1. The researchers report that humans have
3 times more AMY1 copies compared to chimps, on average -- and
bonobos may not have any functional AMY1 copies at all. These findings
support the conclusion that elevated AMY1 copy numbers arose in the
human lineage, not before it.
If this doesn't convince you, Dominy and colleagues have also found
evidence that Homo erectus, an early human progenitor, specialized on
eating high-starch corms* and tubers. In this sister study, Dominy used
stable isotope analysis, a common method to assess diet composition.
In a nutshell, the stable isotope signatures of consumers will resemble the
stable isotope signatures of their food sources-- after some corrections
for fractionation. As it turns out, Homo erectus has a stable isotope
signature that is consistent with a high-starch diet, and decidedly not
consistent with a carnivorous one.
All of these lines of evidence suggest that having many copies of AMY1
is likely to have evolved early in the human lineage-- indeed it may have
been critical to launching humans on our own immensely successful,
starch-filled, evolutionary path.
http://thexvials.blogspot.com/
*
'A corm is a short, vertical, swollen underground plant stem that serves
as a storage organ used by some plants to survive winter or other
adverse conditions such as summer drought and heat (estivation).
..
Internally a corm is mostly made of starch-containing parenchyma cells
above a circular basal node that grows roots.
.. '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corm
'Taro (from Tahitian or other Polynesian languages), more rarely kalo
(from Hawaiian) and gabi in The Philippines, is a tropical plant grown
primarily as a vegetable food for its edible corm, and secondarily as a
leaf vegetable. It is considered a staple in oceanic cultures. It is believed
to be one of the earliest cultivated plants.[1]
Taro was probably first native to the lowland wetlands of Malaysia (taloes).
Estimates are that taro was in cultivation in wet tropical India before 5000
B.C., presumably coming from Malaysia, and from India further transported
westward to ancient Egypt, where it was described by Greek and Roman
historians as an important crop.
..
In Kenya, taro root is referred to as arrow root, or by the Kikuyu or Kamba
word nduma. In South Africa, it referred to by the Zulu word amaDumbe[5]
or the anglicised madumbi[6]. In some Caribbean countries, it is sometimes
known as dasheen, a name said to be derived from the French de Chine
which means from China and evokes the plant's Asian origins. The leaves
are used to make a soup popular in the West Indies, called kallaloo soup.
In Cyprus it is known as kolokassi, which is similar to the name the
Romans used: colocasia. Taro is also known as dalo In the Fijian Islands
and in Japan as satoimo. Eddoe is another name for taro, although this one
seems to be preferentially used to designate small corm varieties.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro
habshi
its silly not to kill animals. Rats and others would overrun the
planet within two years if we dont kill them and why do Jains take
antibiotics to KILL germs!
uNmaiviLambi
> I dont eat beef if I know what it is.,
Good.
> its silly not to kill animals.
Rats and others would overrun the
> planet within two years if we dont kill them and
why do Jains take
> antibiotics to KILL germs!
Why kill them if they do not threaten you ?
dh
In contrast to that: It is a necessary part of considering whether
or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM.
>The act of putting a price on animals'
>heads disqualifies you from taking credit for their lives.
In contrast to that: It is a necessary part of considering whether
or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM.
dh
If you truly think not you are a dangerously sick individual. Many
animals eat different types of animals but few if any are as comfortable
with canibalism as they are with eating other animals, and humans are
most often not among those who are as happy to eat their own kind.
You claim to be a trator to your own species.
Dutch
"Azure" <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote in message
news:s8ydnTiJr7GbkPHU...@posted.gcicommunications...
Sanctimony is fickle mistress.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d56qm4hkh3hespi49...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:44:50 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:17:25 -0800 (PST), uNmaiviLambi
>>> <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 11, 3:37 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> "uNmaiviLambi" <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> You just called me immoral for eating "dead carcasses". What possible
>>>>> moral
>>>>> issue could ensure from anything I do to dead carcasses?
>>>>
>>>>I just asked you to examine your morality. If eating dead carcasses
>>>>persistently is not a moral issue, what is? I think eating too much
>>>>fries and becoming obese, drinking alcohol excessively, abusing drugs
>>>>are moral issues! What about regularly eating dead animals?
>>>
>>> Doing so contributes to life for such animals in the future of
>>> course.
>>> So if you think some livestock have lives of positive value and you
>>> feel good about contributing to more, then it's morally good to eat
>>> them. If you think others have lives of negative value then it would
>>> be morally better not to eat them. It's pretty easy.
>>
>>It's easy, and morally bankrupt.
>
> In contrast to that: It is a necessary part of considering whether
> or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM.
That's not what your "consideration" does, it has nothing to do with cruelty
"to them". Your "consideration", called "The Logic of the Larder" suggests
that the fact that they are living creatures confers an advantage on the
consumer, in that by eating meat we facilitate animals to experience life.
They are beneficiaries of this life and we are their benefactors, and we
become these benefactors simply by having an appetite for meat. According to
this "logic" we call ourselves "considerate", How convenient for us. How
right Salt was in calling this the shabbiest of sophisms. It is hard to
imagine a more self-serving and circular argument.
Perhaps if we committed murder then argued that we spared the victim the
pain and anguish that comes with life that would be a worse sophism.