PDA

View Full Version : Silly things meat eaters say



Odion
13 March 2011, 03:52 AM
Thought this would be a bit of fun as EM-ji suggested. In this thread, write down silly things meat eaters say, usually defending eating meat.

Here's mine:

"but we need to eat the cows, because they are causing global warming. If we don't eat them, we'll be overrun with them."


Yours? C'mon, we've all heard them... :D

flabber
13 March 2011, 04:13 AM
"vegetarians please kill and eat something that has a chance to run and escape (like chicken) instead of plants which can't."


lol

Adhvagat
13 March 2011, 05:12 AM
Plants are life too, you're killing them.

I guess he doesn't realize the animals he's eating need a lot more vegetables to grow, be killed and be turned into meat.

Not to mention they also eat plants, therefore, they're double the monster we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Believer
13 March 2011, 06:49 AM
'I didn't climb to the top of the xxxxxx food chain to eat carrots' - Ron White

Sahasranama
13 March 2011, 07:22 AM
"I have to eat meat because of the cold climate"

:rolleyes:

Odion
13 March 2011, 07:30 AM
"If you don't eat them, they die for nothing!"

Adhvagat
13 March 2011, 07:59 AM
When I was 14, I remember joining forces with a vegetarian friend at school and doing a blatant meat-eating refutal at school. At the end of the day a christian boy exclaimed: "It's really daunting that when we stop to look at it we see that men are behaving like the devil..."

Militancy against ignorance is very important indeed.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/pamphlets/WinMeatEaterArgument.html

Eastern Mind
13 March 2011, 01:27 PM
Vannakkam:

As much as its fun to hear or repeat silly or foolish statements, it really doesn't do a lot of good to elicit change in others. In reality, I think its much better to focus on the positives of vegetarianism, or even just vegetables, grains, legumes etc. As a method of humour, I admire it. A lot of comedy involves quite wise people playing the role of the fool.

Psychologically, nobody appreciates being called a fool. Usually as a strategy it just backfires. The victim gets there dander up, emotion rules, and the situation either remains the same or worsens. Back when I was growing up a meat-eater, even then Mother harped about the virtues of vegetables. "It'll put hair on your chest," was one of the more humorous, but there were others such as 'eating your carrots will give you better eyesight."

I remember taking a dal dish to a pot luck at school, and being asked for the recipe. (Not much of a recipe, but still it was for some, it was probably their first introduction to lentils.) We used to josh back and forth over the virtues om me being a vegetable sitting with all these carnivores. My youngest daughter is currently working in an old style meat and potatoes restaurant, and she is appalled by the number of people who won't eat their vegetables. That's a more realistic start to have the slow change.

Similarly, with our faith, focusing on the positives of our faith rather than the negatives of the Abrahamics seems to do more good in the long run. I often think that more is actually accomplished on an individual level. I know I partially turned one fundamentalist, as I heard her say through a grapevine, "Hinduism can't be all that bad. I know a good one." One at a time isn't a bad start.

There is a section of the Tirukkural that talks about speaking over the head of others. Basically Tiruvalluvar says, "He who talks beyond the level of fools becomes the fool."

Sorry for the ramble.

Aum Namasivaya

Adhvagat
13 March 2011, 02:45 PM
"I have to eat meat because of the cold climate"

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:˛

Adhvagat
13 March 2011, 02:52 PM
Vannakkam:

As much as its fun to hear or repeat silly or foolish statements, it really doesn't do a lot of good to elicit change in others. In reality, I think its much better to focus on the positives of vegetarianism, or even just vegetables, grains, legumes etc. As a method of humour, I admire it. A lot of comedy involves quite wise people playing the role of the fool.

Psychologically, nobody appreciates being called a fool. Usually as a strategy it just backfires. The victim gets there dander up, emotion rules, and the situation either remains the same or worsens. Back when I was growing up a meat-eater, even then Mother harped about the virtues of vegetables. "It'll put hair on your chest," was one of the more humorous, but there were others such as 'eating your carrots will give you better eyesight."

I remember taking a dal dish to a pot luck at school, and being asked for the recipe. (Not much of a recipe, but still it was for some, it was probably their first introduction to lentils.) We used to josh back and forth over the virtues om me being a vegetable sitting with all these carnivores. My youngest daughter is currently working in an old style meat and potatoes restaurant, and she is appalled by the number of people who won't eat their vegetables. That's a more realistic start to have the slow change.

Similarly, with our faith, focusing on the positives of our faith rather than the negatives of the Abrahamics seems to do more good in the long run. I often think that more is actually accomplished on an individual level. I know I partially turned one fundamentalist, as I heard her say through a grapevine, "Hinduism can't be all that bad. I know a good one." One at a time isn't a bad start.

There is a section of the Tirukkural that talks about speaking over the head of others. Basically Tiruvalluvar says, "He who talks beyond the level of fools becomes the fool."

Sorry for the ramble.

Aum Namasivaya

EM activated his father mode... :D

Ok, EM, we can do one thing, we can quote each fallacy said by meat-eaters and then expose why it's a fallacy.

For example:


"If you don't eat them, they die for nothing!"

People who actually believe this don't know that animals don't spontaneously appear in thin air but instead are artificially reproduced and live in bad conditions in industrial facilities until the day they are cruelly slaughtered so their muscles are served as a meal.

Eastern Mind
13 March 2011, 08:01 PM
Vannakkam:

I resign the post of father. (Old fart is acceptable.) Thank goodness for a few others on here, some even older than me, so I don't feel so lonely.

Back to the topic.

But its not alive now.
If I don't eat it, someone else will.

From my daughter: "My doctor said that you cannot physically live without meat, so you're lying." This was deadly serious in a crowd of 20 people.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
13 March 2011, 10:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Yet, śrī nisargadatta maharāj , a realized being ate meat and smoked.
How can this be? The realized are beyond our comprehension to really know.

Now does this suggest we too should follow these habits? Absolutely not. Yet How the Supreme works is beyond our abilities to know in full or in part.

praṇām

Ganeshprasad
14 March 2011, 04:39 AM
Pranam all

Correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the Christians say animals have no soul to circumvent the commandment thou shell not kill.

And Jehovah Witness people when i asked them on the doorstep, why they don't allow blood transfusion when they happily eat meat. answer was that all the blood is drained from the killed animals, strange that i thought, is it possible to drain all the blood?

Jai Shree Krishna

Adhvagat
14 March 2011, 07:41 AM
Pranam all

Correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the Christians say animals have no soul to circumvent the commandment thou shell not kill.

And Jehovah Witness people when i asked them on the doorstep, why they don't allow blood transfusion when they happily eat meat. answer was that all the blood is drained from the killed animals, strange that i thought, is it possible to drain all the blood?

Jai Shree Krishna

Ignorance can be very convenient sometimes.

sanjaya
14 March 2011, 09:49 AM
Heh, just the other day in my office, I mentioned to our IT guy how I don't eat meat. His response, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't eat."

To his credit though, he calmed down when I explained that it's because I'm a Hindu, and not one of those militant PETA vegetarians.


Vannakkam:

I resign the post of father. (Old fart is acceptable.) Thank goodness for a few others on here, some even older than me, so I don't feel so lonely.


But if you resign, how's my actual father going to keep me under control from 200 miles away? This whole business of only getting to lecture me once or twice a month hasn't gone over well for the past eight years.

Eastern Mind
14 March 2011, 10:14 AM
But if you resign, how's my actual father going to keep me under control from 200 miles away? This whole business of only getting to lecture me once or twice a month hasn't gone over well for the past eight years.

Vannakkam: But you already know what your father would say. You don't even have to ask or be in his presence. Just look in a mirror, and think, "Now what would my father say?" It could lead to some internal conflicts for sure.
:) At least it would for me because although I trusted him explicitly on certain ethical questions, there were other things like belief in God that we had quite the differences. :)

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
14 March 2011, 02:25 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Q: Do you eat meat?
A: Nope, none at all... just fish.


This is like saying:

Q: Do you drink alcohol?
A: Nope, none at all - just Gin.





praṇām

Ramakrishna
15 March 2011, 10:50 PM
Namaste all,

I once read somewhere on the internet something like: "India wouldn't have a hunger problem if they just ate all the cows there instead of letting them roam the streets and live peacefully."

I also once got into an online debate with a few of my friends over meat-eating. There were some ridiculous things said, but nothing out of the ordinary. Just the usual things like "Humans need to eat meat in order to get protein."



Q: Do you eat meat?
A: Nope, none at all... just fish.


This is like saying:

Q: Do you drink alcohol?
A: Nope, none at all - just Gin.



That's a great analogy. I know a lady who told me she's a "vegetarian" since she likes animals and doesn't want them to be killed just so we can eat them. But then she said she eats fish...because fish don't feel pain...and sushi tastes too good :rolleyes:

Jai Sri Ram

sunyata07
26 March 2011, 06:14 AM
Namaste,

Had to include this little gem I found the other day in the newspaper: "If animals were not meant to be eaten, why are they made of meat?" Given the nature of the newspaper, I honestly couldn't tell if the comment was meant to be ironic. And yes, that whole protein argument is one of the forerunner points any meat eater will always bring up in these kind of debates.



That's a great analogy. I know a lady who told me she's a "vegetarian" since she likes animals and doesn't want them to be killed just so we can eat them. But then she said she eats fish...because fish don't feel pain...and sushi tastes too good :rolleyes:



Haha... wow, that's ignorant. Although I will admit that I only stopped eating fish last year *nervous laughter*. :o But it's strange to come across someone who won't eat a particular type of meat (like rabbit, for instance) because the animal is "cute", but who will gladly wolf down a steak or pork chops. I didn't know there was an objective measure for adorability. Frankly, I'd like to see how many people would willingly slaughter a cow if they had raised it with their own hands from its birth. I get the feeling not many would.

Om namah Shivaya

anirvan
26 March 2011, 07:45 AM
I have came across so many colleges and friends particularly northern India who ask me take alcohol. when i say i am pure vegan,they says with surprise and amusement that "we belongs to pure vegetarian family too,but whats wrong with Alcohol."

peoples just takes alcohol as another cold drinks. i can say these carpet habits are like fashion trends.

Sahasranama
26 March 2011, 08:07 AM
I didn't know there was an objective measure for adorability. Frankly, I'd like to see how many people would willingly slaughter a cow if they had raised it with their own hands from its birth. I get the feeling not many would.

Om namah Shivaya

Adorability does play a role for many people. Almost no one would eat cat or dog meat, many don't eat horse meat either and others don't eat lambs, deers or rabbits. I once made a comment about cuteness of the animal to someone who ate a lot of lamb meat and he said "Just because I can hug this animal, does it mean I shouldn't eat it, are chickens any less cute?" The funny thing is that this person was a dog lover, he would never eat puppies. He had already drawn a line of cuteness between animals in his mind, but he didn't like to admit it.

Ramakrishna
27 March 2011, 06:02 AM
Namaste,

One of my close friends is a dog lover and he's also a meat-eater. One time I showed him this article about certain groups of Asian people who eat dog, and he was repulsed by it. I pointed out the hypocrisy in seeing no problem with eating cows, chickens, and pigs, but being repulsed by the eating of dogs. He responded that dogs are far more "noble" and smarter than any of those animals. He thinks dogs are the "noblest" of all animals besides humans. I pointed out to him how pigs are actually very intelligent creatures, which they are, but he didn't care at all.

Jai Sri Ram

Adhvagat
27 March 2011, 06:39 PM
Dogs eat feces and smell like ****. They are so bloody noble!

sunyata07
28 March 2011, 11:08 AM
Namaste,

One of my close friends is a dog lover and he's also a meat-eater. One time I showed him this article about certain groups of Asian people who eat dog, and he was repulsed by it. I pointed out the hypocrisy in seeing no problem with eating cows, chickens, and pigs, but being repulsed by the eating of dogs. He responded that dogs are far more "noble" and smarter than any of those animals. He thinks dogs are the "noblest" of all animals besides humans. I pointed out to him how pigs are actually very intelligent creatures, which they are, but he didn't care at all.

Jai Sri Ram

I think that's a prime example of cultural conditioning. Putting my dog lover's feelings aside, I can see why a lot of people in the west would be repulsed by eating dogs. That would be the Chinese who eat dogs, by the way, but as I mentioned once before they seem to eat meat indiscriminately. Perhaps for reasons of having to hunt and scavenge way back thousands of years ago, canines became the primary domestic companion of man - at least in the west. This has become one of many cultural "stamps", if you like, that is hard to get out of most people's psyche. Unfortunately for cows, pigs and sheep they have become the bulk supply of the meat-eating world, intelligent or not. Even the dolphin, one of the smartest and most sociable animals in the world, are not safe from the harpoons of man.

Om namah Shivaya

Adhvagat
29 March 2011, 03:31 AM
I badmouthed dogs and dreamed of wolves that brought black dogs to bite me. I had to keep them away with an iron whip.

I'm sorry dogs, you're a very interesting body form for a jiva and an essential step in jiva transmigration! Please don't bite me! :)

Sādhaka
21 April 2011, 11:13 PM
I saw a video of Zakir naik somewhere refuting the non vegetarians. Probably the silliest thing I've ever heard from a meat eater :D

Jainarayan
09 June 2011, 01:57 PM
Pranam all

Correct me if i am wrong, doesn't the Christians say animals have no soul to circumvent the commandment thou shell not kill.

Jai Shree Krishna

Yes and no. Christianity does not believe animals have a soul. I never accepted that, even when I was a Christian. But there is a command from God in Genesis for man to dominate the Earth, including using animals for food. "Thou shalt not kill" refers only to murdering another human. And even then, it must be pre-meditated to violate the commandment.

Jainarayan
09 June 2011, 02:02 PM
Namaste all,

I once read somewhere on the internet something like: "India wouldn't have a hunger problem if they just ate all the cows there instead of letting them roam the streets and live peacefully."Jai Sri Ram

The reverse is actually true. If all of humanity became carnivorous, there would be more hunger. It easier to grow plants (though grain is overrated) than it is to raise animals.

In fact, beef is not common in China because beef cattle require too much resource. And this comes from someone who followed a caveman diet for the longest time... almost strictly carnivorous.

Onkara
10 June 2011, 11:54 AM
If someone were to say to you that: "Vegetarianism is ego based pride!"

How could you explain that it isn't?

Eastern Mind
10 June 2011, 12:36 PM
If someone were to say to you that: "Vegetarianism is ego based pride!"

How could you explain that it isn't?

Vannakkam Onkara: That one's never come up for me. Is it just a hypothetical, or did someone actually say that to you?

Certainly there are vegetarians that are arrogant and proud about it. In my personal experience, its less likely if they're Hindu. In fact, I actually don't know about (whether or not they're vegetarian) many of my Hindu friends because they DON'T yap about it. But to claim a whole movement is that way is kind of silly.

Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
11 June 2011, 02:09 AM
Vannakkam Onkara: That one's never come up for me. Is it just a hypothetical, or did someone actually say that to you?

Certainly there are vegetarians that are arrogant and proud about it. In my personal experience, its less likely if they're Hindu. In fact, I actually don't know about (whether or not they're vegetarian) many of my Hindu friends because they DON'T yap about it. But to claim a whole movement is that way is kind of silly.

Aum Namasivaya

Thanks for the reply EM
It is hypothetical, it is a question that I have been thinking.

I agree with your point that it incorrect to generalise a whole movement in that way. What for individuals who are vegetarians as it makes them right, and proud through that righteousness, isn't that also a challenge for them to overcome?

I am just considering the idea out loud as it was been on my mind, not looking to offend anyone. :)

sunyata07
11 June 2011, 02:30 PM
What for individuals who are vegetarians as it makes them right, and proud through that righteousness, isn't that also a challenge for them to overcome?



I can see why some staunch vegetarians/vegas would be proud of their strict diet - for most non-veggies, it seems like quite a feat, no? - but I do admit that this can easily turn into nothing more than egotistical posturing ("meat eating is evil!"). I'm with EM on his view on proud veggies. With the holier-than-thou attitude some of them carry around with them, I can't help but see some vegetarians' refraining from eating meat more as a political message rather than primarily as a way of preserving animal life. That's not to say one can't adopt vegetarianism based on the former, though.

Om namah Shivaya

shantiseeker
25 July 2011, 10:01 AM
I am a vegetarian, and one time at a dinner outing with then colleagues, I made an inquiry about a dish having a vegetarian option. I had a colleague under the guise of "just kidding, ha ha" tell me, oh right "don't eat anything with a face". He proceeded to draw a smiley face of ketchup on his plate. I didn't say anything-just a slight roll of the eyes conveying "give me a break" and left it alone. I do not proselytize my vegetarianism nor do I go about it in an elitist fashion. If people inquire, yes, I tell them I do so due to no harm to animals and not for health reasons, but that's only if they ask.

Arjuni
25 July 2011, 12:02 PM
Namasté, all,

I've heard nearly all of the arguments/comments listed above, including the idea that being vegetarian is elitist or egotistical, adopting a way of life against nature while simultaneously feeling "in tune with" nature, pretending a certain personal sanctity that one does not actually have. A few remarks in this regard, with hypothetical (or actual) responses in parentheses:

-Vegetarians kill plants to live; nothing lives without killing, so you might as well eat whatever you want, including meat.
(So, if the type of killing doesn't matter, I might as well eat people too.)

-If you were hungry enough, you'd eat meat. It's a privileged, snotty thing to do, to turn up your nose at food and say, "No, I won't eat that, it's against my principles." People all over the world don't have enough to eat, and here you are picking and choosing like you're better than everyone else.
(We're supposed to use poverty and starvation as benchmarks for moral living? Anyway, less of both would happen if fewer people ate meat, since the resources tied up in meat production are far greater than for plants.
By that argument, also, choosing food at all is the act of a snob; we should eat whatever is available, whenever, with no preferences or dislikes. No person who made that argument was willing to do that.)

-It's not a natural way to live. Look at the vitamins you're taking. If you ate meat, you wouldn't have to take pills...
(When I was vegan, I heard this one regarding milk, too, how milk is "essential" for people to live. What happens to people who live in places where cows don't? Do they keel over?
I noticed that this "natural" argument never surfaced when canned foods or processed snacks were on offer, too.)

I think the worst one I've heard yet is, "Just don't read the labels. If you don't know there's meat in it, then you won't feel bad. Much easier!"

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

sunyata07
25 July 2011, 02:13 PM
I am a vegetarian, and one time at a dinner outing with then colleagues, I made an inquiry about a dish having a vegetarian option. I had a colleague under the guise of "just kidding, ha ha" tell me, oh right "don't eat anything with a face". He proceeded to draw a smiley face of ketchup on his plate. I didn't say anything-just a slight roll of the eyes conveying "give me a break" and left it alone. I do not proselytize my vegetarianism nor do I go about it in an elitist fashion. If people inquire, yes, I tell them I do so due to no harm to animals and not for health reasons, but that's only if they ask.


Namaste shantiseeker,

I think a lot of us here would be the same. Adopting vegetarianism in order to follow ahimsa is not merely political choice, it's a lifestyle that is taken up to preserve the sanctity of life and to engender a sattvic mindset. For some reason though, if you don't include health as a reason for not eating meat most people look at you like you've two heads. It's why I've had to start saying "I just don't want to eat meat" to get the message across: "Yes, I'm vegetarian and no I'm not sorry about it."

Indraneela,



I think the worst one I've heard yet is, "Just don't read the labels. If you don't know there's meat in it, then you won't feel bad. Much easier!"



Ah, ignorance really is bliss for some, isn't it? :D My mother's like this whenever she tries cooking dinner for the whole family using beef, pork or other meat fats. She'll say something like "It's already dissolved into the food, so what's the problem? It's not like you're actually eating it!"

Om namah Shivaya

Jainarayan
25 July 2011, 02:26 PM
She'll say something like "It's already dissolved into the food, so what's the problem? It's not like you're actually eating it!"

Om namah Shivaya

Mothers take courses in "Inane Things To Say 101". When I'd tell my mother I needed my pants' hems let down a bit (especially when you start to look like Steve Urkel), she'd say "Oh they wear them that way". *facepalm*

shantiseeker
25 July 2011, 08:51 PM
Namaste shantiseeker,

I think a lot of us here would be the same. Adopting vegetarianism in order to follow ahimsa is not merely political choice, it's a lifestyle that is taken up to preserve the sanctity of life and to engender a sattvic mindset. For some reason though, if you don't include health as a reason for not eating meat most people look at you like you've two heads. It's why I've had to start saying "I just don't want to eat meat" to get the message across: "Yes, I'm vegetarian and no I'm not sorry about it."

Indraneela,



Ah, ignorance really is bliss for some, isn't it? :D My mother's like this whenever she tries cooking dinner for the whole family using beef, pork or other meat fats. She'll say something like "It's already dissolved into the food, so what's the problem? It's not like you're actually eating it!"

Om namah Shivaya

Yes indeed! I do get second glances some times-and I've been outright asked if I'm vegetarian for health reasons. Whatever side health benefit I get is nice, but not my aim. But even for those who are doing it with health as the motive, I am glad they are doing so at all.
I also am polite-we did take out at work and I got a salad with various toppings. Unfortunately, chicken was added, and no salad for me-people are like-oh, can you just pick it off? And I'm like, no-doesn't work that way for me. And LOL, somebody wrote about not reading labels! NOT! I scan every single one. I verify everything. Meat is hidden everywhere and yes-it does matter. I guess I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand. If one doesn't consume meat, they don't consume meat products, period. That included seasoning packets for a 25 cent Ramen noodle soup packet too:D

Tikkun Olam
07 October 2011, 05:57 PM
Don't listen to people who say it's not natural. Everyone needs boundaries. No one is really a human garbage can that will eat anything just because it's "natural" to put anything in your mouth. If people think that, ask them is they would eat a skunk, or a rat, or a dog, or a dolphin. At some point they will same no. We all have our concept of what is edible.

And saying "no" builds character. There was a long term study done following children. When they were around 5 years old, researchers gave them marshmallows and said, "You can either eat it now, or wait 20 minutes and when we get back, we will give you a SECOND marshmallow". About 1/3 of the children ate them right away, 1/3 waited for a bit then finally gave in and ate it, and 1/3 waited the full 20 minutes are were rewarded with the second marshmallow. Following the children, the third group who were able to wait ended up being much more successful in life. Call that "unnatural". But the kids who did the unnatural thing of not giving in right away had stronger personal qualities that enabled them to live more prosperous lives.



Unfortunately, chicken was added, and no salad for me-people are like-oh, can you just pick it off? And I'm like, no-doesn't work that way for me.

I know how you feel. I'm not a vegetarian, but I strictly stay away from pork, shellfish, and certain other animals. And if one of those is near something, I won't eat it. It does matter. If you believe something's inedible you don't want it touching your salad.

achintya
09 October 2011, 01:50 PM
Dear Sunyata07

The debate and fight between the so-called Sattvik Hindus, primarily the Brahmins and the Vaishyas, and the so-called demonic/Asuric/Tamasic/Rajasik or whatever(they have many names for us) Hindus, primarily belonging to the Kshatriya and Shudra communities, is thousands of years old.

This has also given rise to violent conflicts from time to time, especially in the medieval ages.

I belong to a community which is Shudra but which came up the social status in the Hindu caste hierarchy due to its association with first with the Kshatriyas and later with the Mughals as the hereditary administrative staff in their governments.

Due to our proximity with the royalty of that time, our culture and food habits became akin to them.

Since the Kshatriyas were hunters and they enjoyed to eat their hunts, the Kayasthas became good hunters. At the same time, the Kayasthas also became scholars of Vedanta and Hindu religious studies due to their interest in them and also because being associated with the government, the Brahmins found it difficult to deny them the education in Hindu religious studies which was punishable by death to member of other Shudra communities.

Due to this, some jealous Brahmins used to call Kayasthas as the 'most dangerous Shudras' or even 'Half-Muslims' as we enjoyed both the Kshatriya as well as the Brahmin cultures.

Till this day our community retains that character. We teach our children to eat meat but leave it upto them whether to follow that diet or not.

For us as well as the Kshatriyas, and also for other Shudra communities, the periodic cries of vegetarianism by the self-appointed custodians of Hinduism is more political than spiritual in nature.

A vegetarian Kshatriya friend of mine, who believes that there always has been a conflict between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas over the control of the Hindu society, and that the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are one of the many evidences of this, says that historically, the Brahmins have tried to use the argument for vegetarianism and proving meat-eating to be a violent act, as a moral blackmail over the Kshatriyas.


I don't know whether to agree with this or not, but I do feel that in Hinduism, the cry for vegetarianism has more to do with inter-community politics than anything else.

PrahaladB
20 October 2011, 10:48 PM
Good post achintya.

Agree with you about the non-vegetarian issues as there are entire non vegetarian Hindu communities that are religious. Similarly there are pure vegetarian Hindu communitties that are Hindu in name only.

I'm not sure about the caste issues that you brought up though. I'm a non vegetarian that comes from a vegetarian Brahmin family that doesn't beleive in caste. Historically there may have been problems but nowadays many vegetarian Brahmins are happy to mingle with non vegetarian non Brahmins.

Adhvagat
20 October 2011, 11:50 PM
Perhaps someone with a better knowledge in anatomy than I have could verify if the table on this site is accurate: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html (Humans are naturally plant-eaters)

wundermonk
21 October 2011, 12:07 AM
I have seen "reports" that proclaim the contrary...:dunno:

sm78
21 October 2011, 01:05 AM
I don't know whether to agree with this or not, but I do feel that in Hinduism, the cry for vegetarianism has more to do with inter-community politics than anything else.

That and a huge dose of ignorance on part of those who really believe in it (i.e eating grass makes them superior, spiritually more evolved, sattvic etc).

The concept of tattva & gunas, a concept of samkhya and tantra has been completely turned into scorecard mechanism of earning spiritual browne points. The supreme para-bindu splits into 3 over nada, called sattva,raja, tamas bindus - from which the rest of creation manifests. None is superior to other, none is created from the other, they are just 3 modes/constituent on how prakriti function. Nothing could exist just on one guna. Those who think they are only full of sattva because they eat grass all the time are actually full things which are byproduct of digesting grass - lot of gas that is.

Arjuni
21 October 2011, 01:40 AM
Namasté,

I approach the question from an anthropological perspective, rather than a religious one - and Pietro, in my opinion the table is not accurate. I've seen comparable tables arguing that humans are naturally omnivores, and others that show we are omnivores leaning heavily to carnivory.

There are several problems inherent in anatomical/evolutionary/biological comparisons.

First, one can select what animals and dietary features to use for comparison.
Regarding animals, the author of this table might have compared human beings to only a single herbivore species, choosing a small, domesticated herbivore and pitting it (and the human being) against some large, wild, dominant carnivorous species (like the lion).
Sample size and choice of organisms do matter; a gastrointestinal virus and an Acidophilus species bacterium may share the same environment and dietary source - the human GI tract - but are certainly not similar in numerous other dietary factors.
And regarding diets, another interesting example is how, in the article below, the author argues that chimpanzee diets, being "95-99% plants" (a number which I would question), give important clues to human diet. Then he goes on to argue that chimpanzee meat consumption has nothing to do with human diet.
The author does not point out that some of the chimpanzee diet consists of plant parts (like tree bark and pith) that humans can't digest, and also ignores that the vast majority of this "95-99% plants" consists of fruit. A mostly-frugivore human will suffer numerous problems from excess sugar, including severe tooth decay, heart disease, and diabetes. (Literature on the "fruitarian" diet is enlightening in this regard.) So we see how using a chimp diet as a "clue" may not be so helpful.

In other words, we can't completely compare even two species when all dietary factors are taken into account - so how has the author reached conclusions that cover all herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores?

Secondly, it's hard to interpret human anatomy, because our human culture may shape our physiology in ways that don't involve diet at all. For example, are the well-developed facial muscles of human beings a natural function of the "proper" diet for people to eat? Or could this feature stem from our specialised communication skills, and the numerous evolutionary advantages conferred by both a complex, developed verbal language and a highly nuanced vocabulary of facial expressions? Do we lack claws because we're natural herbivores, or because we evolved as weak-muscled, large-brained beings, better able to construct and wield tools (with our flexible hands and opposable thumbs) than engage in close-up fighting?
(Heck, it's hard to interpret anatomy in general. Pandas are bamboo-eaters with claws, which they use for marking their territory, not killing. The vulture has a crazily corrosive stomach, but the extreme acid isn't just digestive - it protects the bird against ingested toxins.)

An author may also select what factors to compare. Someone who believes that carnivory or omnivory is the natural human state could easily write a counterpoint essay. They could discuss the increase in human cranium size and muscle bulk, commensurate with archaeological finds of hunting tools. They could point out that humans digest their food directly, rather than operating with multiple stomachs in a system of rumination/fermentation, as many herbivores do. They could argue - correctly - that many foods which are now considered human staples, have been bred and genetically engineered to be more palatable or even digestible. (Grains in the past were much smaller, hardier, and required a lot more work to process; beans, likewise, and many squashes were quite a challenge, the hearty Hubbard requiring an axe to split open. Fruit used to be quite a bit more tart, sour/astringent, and fibrous, available only seasonally and sporadically - nothing like the tree candy we grow today in monocultured orchards.) And finally, they could explore physiological requirements for brain and nervous system health, muscle repair, and metabolism under conditions of strenuous work, pointing out that it's nearly impossible to get enough fat and protein from vegetable foods alone.

This ability to select factors means also that an author can also pick and choose what information to exclude. One very important fact, for example - not listed in the table and only briefly mentioned in the article below it - is that human beings can't digest cellulose, the substance that makes plant cell walls rigid, better known as fibre. ("Roughage" slugs its way through the GI tract, and the intestine produces mucus to help slide it along; that's why it's associated with smooth bowel movements. However, too much fibre can make a human being sick in a number of ways.) The staple foods of herbivores, including tree leaves, pith/bark, grasses, and low-lying plants, are mostly indigestible by human beings. Also, if one looks at modern humans as an example, one must also consider the growing problems with the modern agricultural diet, the huge growth of bowel diseases and severe allergies.

Finally, how does one determine the cut-off point in human history for "natural diet," as opposed to "evolved diet" or "adapted diet"? Many of the features of our current anatomy may have nothing to do with what we were "designed" to eat. I imagine, too, that every major world religion would claim a different timeline and rationale for "the ideal human diet" - depending on beliefs about both Designer and Design.

In short, we may construct such a table to support whatever we want to believe.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

sm78
21 October 2011, 01:43 AM
I have seen "reports" that proclaim the contrary...:dunno:

Humans have evolved from omnivores and always been omnivores. From hunting food gatherig time till agro-husbandary society, plant and meat have existed simultaneously in the dietary constituents of humans including hindus and including vedic hindus.

There can be good reasons to follow vegi diet for various individuals, I request them to follow their habits and beliefts. What ticks me off is this constant scrutiny and criticism by these people of those who have meat or fish in their diets. Is it some sort of infiriority complex? or are these people actually subsconciously wanting to taste flesh when they chew on their grass everyday? This is not the first thread on HDF on this silly topic to redicule other people's dietary habits ... pehaves this and western aggression comes more often in discussion than any actual philosophical or spiritual topic.

Again what I have sympathy for is unecessary animal suffering and wastage of food. These are typical problems of the present day industrial westernized societies who produce stuff in bulk more hat one can consume and waste meat in tons. This is a crime when horn of africa is going without a handful of bread. Hunting down animals to extinction, breeding them in inhuman, inhospitable condition in a mass production manner is something I dispise. If we object to meat eating solely on this ground, I am onboard. But this sattva-tama, spiritual-dietary complexity comes every 2nd post when talking against meat eating.

Just meat eating itself has always been part of humanity and it never involved the sort of mass production, wastage and cruelity as it involves now in some societies. In India, mutton is still eaten in limited quantities bread properly and distributed properly by some hindu small businesses. Chicken and Beef are a completely different story. I personally like to avoid all meat, but stictly avoid being preacher about it.

Adhvagat
23 October 2011, 04:51 PM
Humans have evolved from omnivores and always been omnivores. From hunting food gatherig time till agro-husbandary society, plant and meat have existed simultaneously in the dietary constituents of humans including hindus and including vedic hindus.

Just because we have done something since time immemorial it doesn' mean it cannot be stopped. That's bollocks.


Again what I have sympathy for is unecessary animal suffering and wastage of food. These are typical problems of the present day industrial westernized societies who produce stuff in bulk more hat one can consume and waste meat in tons. This is a crime when horn of africa is going without a handful of bread. Hunting down animals to extinction, breeding them in inhuman, inhospitable condition in a mass production manner is something I dispise. If we object to meat eating solely on this ground, I am onboard. But this sattva-tama, spiritual-dietary complexity comes every 2nd post when talking against meat eating.

But the thing is, how can you "produce" meat in this day and age without using vile methods?

And I really, really, can't see WHY should I decide to take the life of an animal to feed myself if I can eat vegetables instead. I can only see egoistical reasons in this considering no environmental factor prevents proper alimentation through vegetables.

I mean, it's about picturing the necessary harm to get both kinds of food and judging them according to your values. And I need to agree with you, you can't preach values, but you can offer the necessary information so people make ethical choices by themselves.


Just meat eating itself has always been part of humanity and it never involved the sort of mass production, wastage and cruelity...

Sorry, but I think the cruelest part is where they kill the animal and that doesn't change in any scenario.

I need to vent this, I hope you don't think I'm directing this to you SM (even though you're clear to disagree and scold me a bit): I went to this lecture of a westerner who said of himself to be a teacher of Tantra, he said in his Ashram they are not vegetarian and they create the animals they eat there. I really cannot for my own life understand how one meditates on the concepts of Tantra or in Shiva and then cuts the throat of a chicken, really, WTF is wrong with people?! These two actions don't sit well with one another in my head.

On the whole, am I missing your point, SM?

wundermonk
23 October 2011, 11:32 PM
Hi PI:

I mostly tend to agree with your points. But non-vegetarians come up with the following counterargument. "Well, to do farming, you still have to use pesticides to keep worms, rats, pests, etc. out of the farm...you are killing them, arent you?"

I think the argument I can make for being vegetarian is that assuming evolution is true, it is much better to eat "lower" entities than "higher" entities in the evolutionary chain. Plants are lower in the tree. They also display a lower level of sentience. They do not have a nervous system. It is lot more humane for us humans as moral agents to eat lower down in the tree than higher up.

Believer
24 October 2011, 10:53 AM
Namaste,

For spiritual advancement, abstaining from mind altering substances (drugs and alcohol), avoiding eating meat and having a calm/balanced sex life are generally considered to be basic requirements (sorry, can't quote any shastras on this) for a householder. Since cannabis is considered a substance worth offering to Lord Shiva and perhaps using it as prasad by some; and meat intake is acceptable to others, I don't see anything wrong with offering a shot of premium JW Blue Label ($400/bottle) to one's Ishat-Devta during the daily evening puja, and then sipping it as prasad. A little 'happy hour' from the prasad at the end of the day does not hurt anyone, and it quiets your nerves. Sure, people have different traditions and consider offering some of the things as normal. Why then stop others from whatever they have been doing or would like to start doing. We should all be able to rationalize everything as long as it is done in moderation. My support of Dvaita/Advaita philosophy, or allegiance to SD or to one of the so called fringe groups like Arya Samaj, or claiming that religion is opium for the masses and is a means to bring together the weak-minded/physically weak/ugly looking/lazy people who don't want to control their own destiny/people in a state of despair/people who have done terrible things and are afraid to face the karmic reactions/moksha crazed frightened souls, and that there is no such thing as God; should be exempt from the purview of others. I am what I am, and I believe in whatever I do, and I practice my religion my way, and I should be able to call myself a Hindu with all my vices and baggage, without being ridiculed by anyone. I am just one person and cannot take down SD by my lack of reverence towards it by eating meat, smoking pot, drinking to my heart's content, going after one night stands and having some fun at the tables in Las Vegas, and still calling myself a Hindu. Have no fears about that. I am just spiritually more evolved than many who need to control and constrict their behavior, spend lot of time reading, researching and memorizing the scriptures and doing pujas 5 times a day, for their taste of the heaven.

Sorry, to be the devil's advocate today, but it is a dirty job and somebody has to do it.

Pranam.

PS If you detect any senility in these thoughts, chalk it up to old age. :)

PrahaladB
24 October 2011, 06:38 PM
Hi I respect the rights of vegetarians to consider meat unclean, sinful, etc. But can someone tell me why there are several threads like this one bashing non vegetarian Hindu's? This is not the first Hindu forum I've come across that is used to bash non vegetarian Hindus.

On one hand Hindus say it's a good thing that there is such a variety in SD/India, but on the other hand the practice of eating non-veg is condemed/ridiculed. Which is silly considering there are entire Hindu communities that eat non-veg.

Believer
25 October 2011, 12:50 PM
Namaste,

1. As of today, I for one have stopped 'bashing' people for their practices.
2. The key words to consider are 'spiritual advancement'. One could be nominally associated with and not be a serious practitioner of Hinduism and could do whatever he/she pleases. However, to move to a higher spiritual plane, there are some guidelines (not rules) to be followed. It is entirely one's own choice, whether to follow them or not.
3. Since everyone wants to establish his/her own boundaries of practice, I want to be spared any criticism when I say that McDonald's is my favorite restaurant, Scotch is what makes me feel relaxed at the end of the day, and casual and frequent sex with new partners is what releases my tension. I just want to be left alone with my boundaries and not have any questions raised about me being a Hindu. Meat eating and pot smoking and sexually charged promiscuous people and moorti pujaks and non-murti pujaks and traditional-stuck-in-the-mud purists and reformed-rationalists and undecided-middle-of-the-roaders and guru believers and self seekers and Brahmins and the lowly non-Brahmins, all have the same rights as Hindus, as the ones who abstain from one or all of these activities. So peace!

Pranam.

Ganeshprasad
25 October 2011, 02:33 PM
Pranam

Wow beliver ji
It beggars belief, That leaves nothing else to say but then i thought is it about calling one self a Hindu or is it about following Dharma?

choices are ours to make, in what direction are we heading? Gita says;

sattvat sanjayate jnanam
rajaso lobha eva ca
pramada-mohau tamaso
bhavato 'jnanam eva ca

Knowledge arises from Sattva; desires arise from Rajas; and negligence, delusion, and ignorance arise from Tamas. (14.17)

urdhvam gacchanti sattva-stha
madhye tisthanti rajasah
jaghanya-guna-vrtti-stha
adho gacchanti tamasah

Those situated in the mode of goodness gradually go upward to the higher planets; those in the mode of passion live on the earthly planets; and those in the mode of ignorance go down to the hellish worlds.(18)

Does it make any difference what we call ourselves? perhaps yes but what matters most is what direction are we heading?

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
25 October 2011, 03:42 PM
Hi I respect the rights of vegetarians to consider meat unclean, sinful, etc. But can someone tell me why there are several threads like this one bashing non vegetarian Hindu's? This is not the first Hindu forum I've come across that is used to bash non vegetarian Hindus.

On one hand Hindus say it's a good thing that there is such a variety in SD/India, but on the other hand the practice of eating non-veg is condemed/ridiculed. Which is silly considering there are entire Hindu communities that eat non-veg.

Vannakkam PrahaladB: Bashing? I don't view it as bashing to point out that people say silly things. Little kids say silly things. The opposite sides of political spectra say silly things about the other side. Oil magnates say without a hint of doubt: "There is no such thing as global warming." I view that as silly.

Most of my Hindu friends (with the exception of very close people within my particular sampradaya) are indeed meat eaters. I have no problem with them, nor them with me. We kid each other, none of it very seriously. If I were serious, I suppose I'd refuse to enter a temple where they had been or some silly thing like that.

So I'm not sure where you get this 'bashing' thing from. I consider it a pretty extreme term. Examples are the vile language some right wing Christians might say against Hindus in general.

But just to put forth your version of a decision you've made regarding lifestyle, particularly diet, isn't bashing. What's next, when someone says, "I'm a vegetarian," it's called bashing?

Aum Namasivaya

PrahaladB
22 November 2011, 05:13 PM
In other words it is acceptable to bash meat eaters using mumbo jumbo excuses i.e. 'meat eating is sinfull/bad karma'.

Thanks for clarifying my suspicions that this site is for vegetarian Hindus only.

Lajila
03 January 2012, 04:41 AM
Someone said to me the other week that vegetables feel the pain of being pulled from the ground, but cannot speak to us.... :rolleyes:

Moonlight
03 January 2012, 10:21 AM
Someone said to me the other week that vegetables feel the pain of being pulled from the ground, but cannot speak to us.... :rolleyes:

Lol that reminds me of secret life of plants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGRluepFwdg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

NayaSurya
03 January 2012, 10:49 AM
I never came here, because I felt it silly...but perhaps this would have been the reason to come. This thread takes a stance as an older child poking fun at a younger child.

My two children...

Conversation from August 2011-

Younger child: "It's going to SNOW!!! YESSSSSS!!!"
Older child: "UGH! No it's NOT! You are SO dumb! EVERYONE knows it can't snow until SEPTEMBER!!" (Uhm not in Ky)

No matter how much you know, I just never think you have enough to sit back and poke fun at another...talk long enough and you will say something right...talk longer and you will say something wrong.

You know what the silliest thing I heard someone ever say?

A vegan once told me that she didn't eat meat because..."she didn't eat anything with a face".

So her whole belief was, that if it looked like her...she would validate its existence, it could live.

Without this vessel we exist...so it is clear to me we do not need one to manifest. Some of my best friend have been trees...

But, I simply do not know which things here do and do not have enough of Beloved to Know...or know they don't know...or simply do not know.

As a portion which is still very ignorant I can not see clear enough to decypher the code of this secret, yet.

At my father's deathbed I was told to talk to him...despite his state...of course I had been all night. At one point I said..."hi it's me lanie" and you know what happened?? He said..."I know" and I said "I love you and he said "I love you". This man who sat silent for hours...had been there listening.

All I can say is...

Be kind...to every living thing.

Even the things which do not act, look or seem as you.

You never know who is listening.

Eastern Mind
03 January 2012, 11:19 AM
Vannakkam: This was a pretty smart carrot if you ask me.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=ring+on+carrot&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1440&bih=729&tbm=isch&tbnid=MDMIInf9ZG4qgM:&imgrefurl=http://topnews.net.nz/aggregator%3Fpage%3D1&docid=6JzcfIBIYbfUHM&imgurl=http://topnews.us/images/carrot-ring.jpg&w=460&h=406&ei=uDcDT962EYjj0QG30KCHAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=417&sig=101583928988083030274&page=1&tbnh=119&tbnw=135&start=0&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:31,s:0&tx=69&ty=44

Just last week I was watching a show about variety of DNA. We don't just have DNA, but it comes within each species as variations. The scientists doing the research assumed creatures with greater intelligence would have a greater number of varieties of DNA. They were surprised when this assumption proved false. a simple cob of corn has more variations in it's DNA and cell structure than a human.

Aum Namasivaya

sankar
04 January 2012, 06:10 AM
Someone said to me the other week that vegetables feel the pain of being pulled from the ground, but cannot speak to us.... :rolleyes:
from my understanding, they do feel pain though not severe as animals.

Tāṇḍava
04 January 2012, 09:57 AM
"Its impossible to live on native british plants"

I'm not sure if that's even true, but the person saying it was eating chicken and chips at the time (chickens originated in India and potatoes in South America)

anirvan
13 February 2012, 07:18 AM
http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=53

A supposedly learner and speaker on Vedic knowledge Dr Radhesyama brahmachari.educated in Ramakrishna mission is preaching the Beef eating practice in vedas.

How one can stoop down to such extent?

Ramakrishna
13 February 2012, 02:51 PM
Namaste all,

I saw this somewhere online recently, I think on Facebook, and it just might be one of the most illogically foolish things I have ever heard. The person was trying to show how eating flesh is actually good for the environment:

"Meat eaters get rid of methane-producing animals while vegetarians destroy oxygen-producing plants.".....therefore meat-eating is better for the environment than vegetarianism.

................................................................:doh:

Jai Sri Ram

journey2salvation
16 February 2012, 05:01 AM
Hi all,

I was a non-vegetarian. Later, I was introduced to spirituality and that's when it seemed like vegetarian food was better to my body and mind. Its safe to be vegetarian if you are a sadhak. Of course, Non vegetarian is delicious but the fact that you eat animals is ugly and takes away that beauty within you. Non-vegetarian food should be strictly avoided if one is on a spiritual path.

sm78
17 February 2012, 04:36 AM
[COLOR="Red"]
How one can stoop down to such extent?

Probably he got inspired reading this silly thread and wanted to do something silly himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Believer
20 February 2012, 09:05 PM
Namaste,

Sahas, you would agree (I hope) that things like that are not something pleasant to talk about and it is far better to gloss over them, rather than bring them out and spend lot of time discussing them. I am not sure why overlooking it bothers you. Even if all this is documented and part of shastras, do you really want all of us to be laughed at by bringing out 'oddities' in the scriptures and thereby devalue everything pristine in them? I don't know what kind of numbskull put it in there originally, or inserted it at a later date. The bottom line is that this is something sick that should be better left untouched. When someone starts stirring a pile of poop with a stick, the only thing you get is stink all around. What constructive purpose does it serve to talk about sex between humans and a horse. Just the idea is repulsive, even if it is part of the highest and most ancient shashtra. Do you want to be the one to publicize it and may be recommend that it be tried in the present day too? I know you care so much about Hinduism. Why this fascination with something so stupid, that it is better to leave it buried or expunge it from the books. That will not reduce the value/significance of the shastras. I am just amazed that a caring and smart person like you wants to preserve every facet of a shastra, even if it was the most ridiculous thing that mankind can think of. Please think about it and let go of this attachment to being a puritan by adopting everything in a 'book'.

To draw a parallel, if I may, was the time when the then Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai gave an interview to a prominent US newsman, talked about drinking his urine every morning, and suggested that the newsman (and by implication all of us) try that too. I did not go to work for a week after that interview was aired. :) You want a repeat of that? I am at a loss to understand the fascination with clinging to something like a horse-human conjugation? If the reformists or the Gita press did something to bury it or expunge it, I have nothing but respect for their efforts in getting the garbage out of the sacred books. Please rethink about it with a cool head.

Pranam.

satay
21 February 2012, 12:01 PM
Admin Note

Thread under review.