|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 07:59 AM by Indigo_Child
|
Also can someone please tell me why it is okay to eat fish but not other animals. I asked a friend once and they didn't know themselves they
just said that that was the way it was for them.
-Cauch1
It's intuition really. Most people who eat meat such as chicken, will not eat dogs and cats, because they think it is intuitively wrong to eat dogs
and cats. Likewise, some vegetarians can eat fish, but find it intuitively wrong to eat meat from more sentient animals.
Each animal has different levels of manifest consciousness. At the lowest level we have insects, then fish, then birds and reptiles, then mammals. The
higher you go the more wrong it becomes to kill the animal, because at that point they are sentinent and killing them is no different to killing a
human child.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 08:58 AM by Cauch1
|
reply to post by Indigo_Child
OK now firstly I could not find any statement that was correct in that post. What on earth does all that stuff to do with spirits have to do with
surviving? Please an answer. The only part that I could think of that may have some basis is that those who don't eat meat fight less. Although
that is probably because they are malnourished and lack the energy (that said when I was at school I knew a vegetarian who was very aggressive and
attack people over small slights). Pretty much everything you just said was make believe nonsense. All that about different grades and a spirit
being heavy have nothing to do with the differences between meat and vegetables or surviving. I am sensing a level of preaching coming in here.
-Cauch1
EDIT: didn't notice the post about the fish.
[edit on 10/5/2009 by Cauch1]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:05 AM by Malcram
|
reply to post by Cauch1
I gather you eat meat. So, do you eat humans, and if not why not? Would you have a problem killing and eating a human - more problem than you would
killing and eating a pig or a deer? If so, you already understand the concept Indigo is presenting and only need to follow the chain down - people who
eat meat may still have an ethical problem killing humans for meat, and people (mammals) who eat fish may have an ethical problem killing and eating
larger animals (other mammals) such as pigs or cattle etc. Others would not even eat fish.
My own basic policy is that I don't eat anything that would attempt to escape from me when I tried to catch it to eat it. LOL. I figure that I don't
want to be killed and eaten and so I have empathy for other things that clearly don't want to be killed and eaten either.
Plants, so far, haven't made great attempts to run away when I hunt them, so I get the impression they aren't that bothered. 
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:09 AM by Sonya610
|
Originally posted by audas
You wouldn't you would die. Pure and simple it would be impossible to survive as a vegetarian in the wild.
You are only able to maintain this type of diet from the wonders and joys of the agricultural revolution. You would survive for quite some time -
eventually you would die.
I agree completely. Being a survivalist means things will get rough and you will have to kill things to survive, whether it be animals for protein, or
humans that are threatening you, or animals that are threatening etc...
You can't be a survivalist and maintain that level of moral idealism. I am not criticizing, just being realistic. Buddhist monks were idealists, and
they also believed in various forms of suicide. That would be the best bet in order to main your value system.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:17 AM by Malcram
|
Originally posted by Sonya610
Being a survivalist means things will get rough and you will have to kill things to survive, whether it be animals for protein, or humans that are
threatening you...."
What about killing humans for protein, if the scenario was unavoidable for survival? (and please don't just avoid the question by saying the scenario
would never arise - it could.) Would you kill and eat humans to survive?
How do you weigh ethics against survival? Is it survival at all costs, or is there a limit? If there is a limit to the ethical compromises you
are prepared to make then you can understand when other people are also unwilling to make compromises in their ethics, and accept that where each one
draws the line will be different.
If we are purely talking survival, then the "best" survivalist is a psychopath who has no moral qualms about hunting and slaughtering humans
or any other protein source to devour. Think Hannibal Lector.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:20 AM by Indigo_Child
|
reply to post by Malcram
LOL, great policy! Funnily enough, the plants I've eaten don't seem all that bothered either
The sign of life is the instinct to survive. If you try and kill a living being it will naturally fight or flee, because it is feelilng pain. I know
what pain feels like - it's not very nice - so why would I want to inflict it on others? That would not make me very nice. I think perhaps people
should think of that next time they go boiling a lobster alive, I am sure they wouldn't like to be boiled alive?
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:26 AM by Sonya610
|
Originally posted by Malcram
What about killing humans for protein, if the scenario was unavoidable for survival? (and please don't just avoid the question by saying the scenario
would never arise - it could.) Would you kill and eat humans to survive?
Avoid the question? Why would I? I am not a survivalist, I would not be keen on shooting animals or humans or food.
If I had to do it I would prefer to shoot animals though, as it would be disgusting to render a human carcass and the meat is supposedly VERY VERY
fatty. That is from the practical perspective.
From the moral perspective if the situation had stabilized and there were honest decent settlers nearby of course it would be wrong to shoot them for
food. The difference isn't that the humans are morally/spiritually superior compared to animals, it is because a level of TRUST would be established
with decent neighbors. Killing your friendly neighbors would be like killing your dog for food. Just wrong.
On the otherhand if anarchy reigned and there were random groups of unsavory individuals roaming about then yes, I would prefer to kill humans rather
than innocent animals all things being equal (i.e. quality of meat and disease risk). I like most animals more than most people.
Let me ask you a question, if you had to shoot the human anyway would you have a moral problem eating their flesh?
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Sonya610]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:39 AM by Indigo_Child
|
reply to post by Cauch1
It is a myth that vegetarians are unhealthy and weak. There are many vegetarian bodybuilders:
images.google.co.uk...
However, bodybuilding muscular development is only aesthetically pleasing, it is not very heathy. Those who practice Yoga(most of which are
vegetarian) have very naturally healthy bodies with good strength, endurance and flexibility. They don't look like bodybuilders usually, but they are
very fit.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:45 AM by Malcram
|
reply to post by Sonya610
I'm trying to discern the answer to my question from your last post. So you would shoot humans ("bad" humans) and eat them, before killing animals,
under certain circumstances, is that what you are saying?
The ethical problem for me is not the eating of flesh - any flesh - it's the killing of the animal to do so. As a vegetarian I possibly would eat
already dead flesh of all sorts in an extreme survival situation, but I probably wouldn't kill to live. I'm not willing to
purposefully trade the lives of others for my life.
I suspect we are veering off topic rapidly here. Apologies to the OP if that is the case LOL.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:49 AM by Now_Then
|
Just off the top of my head I'd say a big part of your diet that would be problematic is protein, I know you can get it from plants but really a meat
eater would not really have to think all that hard about protein sources - eggs, meat and fish...
We omnivorous just try to mix whatever you will be trying to base your entire diet on with some of the above!... And remember there may only be so
much food to go around - a vegetarian may not have enough energy left to defend those juicy fruits and veg from an evil meat eater!!
This seems to be quite a good link regarding protein in a vegan diet (I know your
veggie not veagan) maybe that helps.
edit: in all honesty I think you will very quickly discover that your choice to be vegetarian is a luxury of modern life... That is when eating
anything at all is based on luck, skill.... some more luck 
To quote a great man: Troy McClure: Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!
[edit on 10/5/2009 by Now_Then]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:52 AM by audas
|
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by audas
There are arguments on both sides. I am not interested in getting debate over vegetarian vs non-vegetarianism. Please respect that.
I will only say this much and I am entitled to state my opinion, so I intend no offense to anyone. While it is true we are omnivorous, foods more
conducive to holistic well being are vegetarian food(fruit and veg) There is a science behind this, but it a spiritual science. Each food item we
consume has life-force/energy(Prana/Chi/Ki) and it attains this life force directly from the Earth and the Sun. This is why food which is directly
nourished by the sun has more vitality. Generally, food falls into three categories of energy:
Inertia inducing
Passion inducing
Calm inducing
The foods which cause heaviness induce inertia such as alcohol, meat, nicotine and other drugs. These are foods low in lifeforce. Meat is low in
lifeforce because it comes from a second-grade or third grade source. The human meat-eater at the top of food chain acquires their energy from an
animal, which either derives its sustenance from the Earth(second grade) or from other animals which derive their sustenance from the earth(third
grade)
Lets start from the bottom of the food chain with the herbivores. The animal consumes earth-food nourished with the suns life-force or the earth. Some
of this energy is used to build flesh. This literally happens through the soldification of energy from the food i.e., it becomes heavy. This
second-grade source is then consumed by a carnivorous animal. Some of that energy is used to build flesh, but this is a more dense and heavier energy.
This third-grade source is then consumed by a human. Some of that energy is used to build flesh, but this is an even more dense and heavier energy. If
a human then consumes another human they are getting the most dense energy possible.
From this we can see that the initial life force gets lesser and more dense along the food chain. Now spirit has the quality of "lightness" so if
you feed it dense food, it will become heavier and this will cause it to degrade.
The best evidence of this is in cannibals. They have the most degraded spirit and it reflects in their violent behaviour.
I believe there are some scientific studies which show that that meat-eating is a factor in producing aggressive and violent behaviour. This is
probably why the martial-class throughout history has been fed a diet of mostly meat.
Now as a free soul I have the right to choose what I want to be. If I choose the body over the spirit, then yes I can eat meat. However, I have chosen
the spirit over the body, so no I will not eat meat. Only in an exreme survival situation will I consider eating some kind of meat of an animal which
is least in sentience, such as fish.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Look I have told you - your opinoins are not based on any science, facts or reality what so ever, they are based on pseudo religious quackery - now as
you yourself said - you are entitled to believe waht ever you want - and you clearly do - but in so doing so you you reveal about yourself a very high
level of narcissism - you are thoroughly disconnected from reality. That is simply beyond any question or doubt - you are allowed to be that way,
thats fine - I am am just stating the truth.
As for everything else you have claimed regarding life force, none of this bears any relevance to reality, its just fantasy - which you happen to
believe and are entitled to - but it is fantasy.
As far as reality goes - we are human, we are designed by NATURE - the only real life force there is and can possible be - and if you want to get in
touch with this - especially if you want to go and live in the wild - then you should goa nd live or at least spend some time with some indienous
tribal people - I recommend the Australian Aboriginals as these are the oldest surviving culture on earth, are the msot spritually connected people on
earth, know more about surviving off the land than any other culture on earth, and will give you the reailty check you need.
Remember these people were hanging with their spritual gods about so times longer than your god - yep well over sixty thousand years ago - good luck
with your new age, modern Budha theories.
cheers.....
o.s.
you cant live on vegetarian diet - nor grow beans or bean shoots in the wild..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:57 AM by Sonya610
|
Originally posted by audaso.s.
you cant live on vegetarian diet - nor grow beans or bean shoots in the wild..
Yeah they really couldn't. They would need some type of agricultural structure to survive any length of time.
If they could group together with others and had the resources to start planting crops they might have a chance. But living alone in the wild would
mean certain failure. Vegetarians need agriculture to survive for any length of time.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 09:59 AM by Malcram
|
reply to post by Sonya610
Aren't nuts high in protein and fat? I might not kill and eat a squirrel, but I might rob him blind! 
OK, OK, I admit it, I'd probably raid several squirrel stashes and leave them some each time. Share and share alike I say.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:01 AM by Indigo_Child
|
reply to post by audas
you are entitled to believe waht ever you want - and you clearly do - but in so doing so you you reveal about yourself a very high level of
narcissism
Well if I am narcissitic for having my own beliefs and morals sensibilities, then so are you 
As I told you it is a spiritual science, but a lot of it checks out with common sense. It is a fact that the food we consume is broken down into
energy and only a part of it builds flesh. So logically there is more energy in a primary source like fruit and veg, than there is in a secondary
source or a tertiary source.
By the way I am always wary of anybody that tells me what "reality" is.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:03 AM by Malcram
|
reply to post by Indigo_Child
I have just rediscovered the joys of the Ignore button. You don't have to put up with rude people intent on insulting you rather than just sticking
to discussing the issues.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:08 AM by Cauch1
|
To Indigo and Malcram
By your logic if I come across a crippled animal then I am allowed to eat it because it is not escaping me. That is a ridiculous theory. It hasn't
run away so I am allowed to eat it??
Anyway back on topic where did I mention anything about bodybuilders. What I said was that vegetarians would be malnourished and have less energy
which is true. If we leave aside people building muscle for the sake of it then meat is far better for muscle growth. It contains plenty of protein
and a bit of fat. Whereas trying to get your protein from nuts and such like will leave you taking in vast amounts of unneeded fat and little protein
compared to meat.
As to the question over whether I would eat another person for survival this is my answer. If the situation was to arise that the only way for me to
prevent starvation was to kill and eat another person than that person would be in the same situation. As neither person can trust the other not to
kill them I would kill them. They are now dead. There is nothing I can now do about them being dead and it would be wasteful (not to mention fatal)
to let that meat go to waste. So yes in a roundabout way I would be willing to eat someone else rather than die. It is my life or theirs and I value
mine more. It is basically the same as saying if the person was going to kill you would you kill them. Because my answer to that question is yes
then I might as well eat them once they are dead, as I am hungry and there is no other food supply.
-Cauch1
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:09 AM by Sonya610
|
Originally posted by MalcramAren't nuts high in protein and fat? I might not kill and eat a squirrel, but I might rob him blind!
Wouldn't count on that. Every read about the Buddhist monks that practice self-mummification? They starve themselves to death over a 4 year period,
and they eat NUTS and seeds during that process.
www.thethinkingblog.com...
Think about the populations that survive on vegetarian diets. They are populations that depend heavily on agriculture.
Were any of the native americans vegetarians? And if not, why not? If you can't grow your own food you will not survive. Humans are not squirrels or
deer, our species is an onmivore.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:18 AM by Malcram
|
Originally posted by Cauch1
To Indigo and Malcram
By your logic if I come across a crippled animal then I am allowed to eat it because it is not escaping me. That is a ridiculous theory. It hasn't
run away so I am allowed to eat it??
Er no, that "logic" is unique to you. Being a reasonable and intelligent person you are well aware that the animal would indeed run away if it
could, but it can't because it is crippled. Therefore you still have enough insight to know that the animal does not want to be caught and
killed. I am happy to abide by it's wishes.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:18 AM by Indigo_Child
|
reply to post by Cauch1
Caunch, I don't quite understand how you could be malnourished and be a bodybuilder at the same time?
Regarding survival and killing and consuming human. Perhaps, if you thought that this was your only life and everything ends at death. As somebody who
is spiritual I think that this is one of many lives and it does not end at death. So, while I would definitely try to survive, I would not comprimise
my ethics to survive, even if it means losing my current body.
Intuitively, you would do the same as me. Suppose you are isolated in cabin with your loved ones, and there is nothing else to eat. Will you start
killing and eating each other? After all if survival is your highest value , then a piece of meat is a piece of meat at the end of the day, not a
brother, sister, father or mother.
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2009 @ 10:22 AM by Malcram
|
reply to post by Sonya610
My point was not that one could survive solely on nuts, it was that wild plants, roots and fruits can provide carbs and vitamins and minerals etc. and
nuts and seeds can provide enough protein and fat.
Actually, this would make an interesting TV series. "The Vegetarian Survival Experiment"
[edit on 10-5-2009 by Malcram]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
