Eating meat and dairy vs. vegetarian/veganism (Buddhism, grace, choices)

[Green Gaia]

I think the eating animals products vs. no eating animal products can be a great debate. I'd like to start another thread since this one was closed because of namecalling, rude posts and too many off topic comments to salvage the thread. That will not be allowed to happen in this thread. This debate on the subject will a different tone that will hopefully be more conducive to debate and civility and be educational at the same time.

Therefore if you wish to participate in this debate you MUST have evidence to back up any claim you make. If your religion restricts your diet or compels you to avoid certain foods, then your holy text is acceptable evidence to back up your motivations. Any post or claim that does not have evidence to back it up will be ignored and/or deleted. Also, calling people names or making fun of their dietary choices is not acceptable and any off topic post will be deleted.

If you do not agree with these guidelines, do not post in this thread.


p.s. I didn't want to put all these restrictions on a debate, but after the other thread it became apparent that some folks needed a more structured debate on the subject to stay within the forum rules.

Debate:
Using animal products VS. not using animal products:
Which is better for the animals, for humans and for the environment?

[EnhancedSpirit]

Nature is established in such a way that requires a food chain. Some animals are food for other animals. If a cow was not eaten by a human, it might be eaten by another predator, or it might be devoured by disease, if nothing else, it will eventually die of old age, and become food for other animals and plants.

We have witnessed what happens when a predator is removed from a place, and many species are left to become overpopulated, and breeding more disease suseptable animals. To upset the balance of nature is not a good thing, and we have a lot of evidence of this from the ecologists and other similar scientists.

But what is best for each person is diverse. A person who lives in Alaska would have different dietary needs than someone who lives in a tropical location, or someone who lives in a desert environment. A person in Alaska has to have meat, and fat in their diet to survive the winters. Where a person in Hawaii would probably benefit from abstaining from red meat. I do not think there is a simple answer of what is right or wrong here.

[c0da]

I try to eat as little meat as I can as I think it would go against the first of the five precepts in Buddhism, which is not to harm living things.

I think it is fine if others want to eat meat and I do not have a problem with it. People eat meat/don't eat meat for many different reasons and that is something we all must accept, however different it may be from our own diet (apart from cannibalism, that is bad).

[michel]

Originally Posted by c0da2006

I try to eat as little meat as I can as I think it would go against the first of the five precepts in Buddhism, which is not to harm living things.

That is why I would not eat meat, by choice.

[Jaymes]

Tolerance, compassion and simplicity are things I (try, try, try) to live my life by. These are referred to as the three jewels of the tao... I see nothing compassionate about factory farming. A life of suffering isn't worth a tasty nugget or burger.

Chickens that are raised "free range", according to the legal definition of free range, can be raised in a shed as factory farmed chickens are as long as they have a tiny area to go outside. Often this just means a small door leading outside with only a few square feet of space. I see that as only marginally better than factory farming and refuse to eat free range chicken for this reason.

Free range eggs, on the other hand, has no legal definition, and eggs can be marketed as free range simply because their chickens live in cages an inch or two bigger than the standard. Because of this, I'm getting chickens soon and raising them myself to make sure that the eggs I eat are free-range. Obviously this isn't a viable option for everyone. It is possible for most everyone to find local farmers and see with your own eyes how they treat their chickens, though.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/lablterm.htm

On this site, which lists the legal definitions of free range and and free roaming, mentions only poultry. If anyone has the definitions for cattle and pigs, I'd be much obliged.

[Atheist_Dave]

I think the only way to KNOW that the meat you eat comes from animals that have lived contented lives, is to keep them yourself. It is a dream of mine to one day have a small holding where I can live with the animals and give them as good a live as possible, until then I guess the safest thing to do is only buy from small businesses who can tell you EXACTLY where the meat came from, and what conditions the animals lived in.

Like Jensa said, the "Free range" logo is very decieving, often the animals are not treated any better than broiler chickens. I think here in britain eggs with the RSPCA logo are different, they have much stricter rules, I wouldn't know too much, as we get our eggs from a small farm outside our town, where we see the chickens pottering about daily, with about an acre of space (grass, not concrete, which is another way the decieve you, often "free roaming" means a clearing on the factory floor) , it really is nice to see.

I really am concerned for the way we look after animals, I do enjoy eating meat though, and it would be a shame to have to stop because people refuse to treat animals with the respect that they deserve. If you do eat meat, my advice is to look around, pay more if neccesary, to find well cared for animals. Maybe if everyone simply didn't buy meat from these disgusting places they would be forced to take action, but that isn't a possibility for everyone, it seems a cared for animal costs more, and the life of a factory animal is worthless, which is a disgrace.

Ok rant over, see ya. x x x

(I need to eat my dinner now, I will try and find the links to relevant websites later)

[Magurk]

I have thought about my feelings towards this issue for a while. I have came to peace with the fact that not everyone can become Vegan because not everyone can share the same compassion for animals as I or other Vegans. I feel very compassionate towards any animal, and i have realized that not everyone can feel that way.

[Seyorni]

If it is OK to eat animals as long as they are raised and slaughtered humanely why would it not be OK to eat humans, as long as they were raised in comfortable cells and allowed some access to the outdoors?
I don't see a qualitative difference. A cow, pig and hominid have similar nervous systems, presumably the same capacity for suffering and fear. The only justifications I see for treating a person differently from a pig is either religious mythology or "might makes right."

If you believe that the world and everything in it was created solely for the benefit of humans I cannot dispute you. This view is based purely on faith. It's unsupported by any reason or evidence and, thus, is immune to same.

If you believe it's proper to exploit those we are in a position to exploit then, presumably, you would find no fault in one group of people preying on or exploiting another, weaker group. Such a view would find no fault in the Cambodian, Nazi or Armenian genocides, it would find slavery perfectly acceptable.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

If it is OK to eat animals as long as they are raised and slaughtered humanely why would it not be OK to eat humans, as long as they were raised in comfortable cells and allowed some access to the outdoors?
I don't see a qualitative difference. A cow, pig and hominid have similar nervous systems, presumably the same capacity for suffering and fear. The only justifications I see for treating a person differently from a pig is either religious mythology or "might makes right."

If you believe that the world and everything in it was created solely for the benefit of humans I cannot dispute you. This view is based purely on faith. It's unsupported by any reason or evidence and, thus, is immune to same.

If you believe it's proper to exploit those we are in a position to exploit then, presumably, you would find no fault in one group of people preying on or exploiting another, weaker group. Such a view would find no fault in the Cambodian, Nazi or Armenian genocides, it would find slavery perfectly acceptable.

How about: I have no issue with the predator/prey relationship. I have no problem eating an animal (for preference one that's lived a reasonably free and happy existence), just as I have no problem with predators eating people. Few things annoy me more than the rabid need people have to hunt down a predator because it's eaten a person.