Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ForEverAfter]

can you read what he responded to and tell me how that has changed anything because now I am confused by what you meant. Or, are you just assuming it changes anything?

You need to re-read it.
I was responding to something you said, not RM..
So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
RM never said any such thing.

You won't sit here and debate why something is objectively right or wrong because you cannot. You have no argument.

It's such an easy stupid argument.
It's OBVIOUSLY wrong. I've already explained why.
Care to respond to this:

Why is hurting another person wrong?

(And don't reply with something like "if you can't figure that out for yourself then you lack the ability to empathize. I am perfectly capable of empathy, and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is why it is right or wrong.)

Empathy is involved in the reasoning. It is wrong because we know we wouldn't like it... We are smart enough to recognize the pain it causes other people and smart enough to recognize that we, too, are people... and - finally - smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.

I've already said this. We know it is wrong, because we wouldn't like it done to us.
You can't absolutely separate feelings and logic into two distinct categories that don't overlap.

??

 

[Ninae]

Saying things like "You have no argument" doesn't mean you've won. I've already argued with you as far as I feel I can get. It won't get any better.

 

[murphythecat]

the intention is what matters.
if your intention is to protect someone form something it would hurt her very bad, and you dont lie, but omit to tell her the truth as maybe the truth is not yours to tell, the situation is entirely different.
intention is key here.
if your intention is to kill, steal, lie, hurt, suffering will always happen!
every situation, like Tsomo said, is different and shouldnt be judge by anyone. the only one who can really judge and know, is himself and one should always know in every situation what his intentions are.

You are the one who needs to do research. If you say it is absolutely wrong to lie, then say unless (fill in blank): you have just contradicted yourself and in essence told a lie(said something untrue). If it absolute, it stands on its own with no exceptions to the rule.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Again, he's right.

You've trapped yourself.

You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...

 

[murphythecat]

if only you knew, you would freak out about buddhism.
even listening to music is to be abbandonned.
even having sex and looking for sex is seen as bad

but I promise, if your intention is to hurt, kill, steal, lie, you will suffer.

Again, he's right.

You've trapped yourself.

You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...

 

[turkalurk]

This reminds me of the saying "You will first be free when you align your will with the will of God or you choose to follow divine law by your own free will".

Meaning, from then on you will only want to do good so only good things will happen to you. Also called achieving liberation from the cycle of suffering. A powerful truth, but one that can be hard for humanity to accept.

At least I can't see it any other way, in all honesty.

i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence. Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.

 

[Ninae]

Again, he's right.

You've trapped yourself.

You must agree, now, after admitting that "killing" is not absolutely wrong and that there are exceptions, that the five precepts (like the ten commandments) should not be treated as absolute moral values... They're not specific enough and - like the commandments - they can lead to fundamentalist behavior...

That wouldn't need to happen if one could assume we have the judgement-power to know when something is wrong and when it's not - like the difference between a murder and a mercy-killing. But to do that you would need to have a sense of right and wrong and know what is generally wrong in the first place.

 

[Ninae]

i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence. Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.

Another get-out clause, this is getting silly. And try to post when you're sober enough that you can spell.

 

[ForEverAfter]

if only you knew, you would freak out about buddhism.
even listening to music is to be abbandonned.
even having sex and looking for sex is seen as bad

but I promise, if your intention is to hurt, kill, steal, lie, you will suffer.

I do know. I mentioned to you, in at least one other thread, that you will probably be expected to be sexual abstinent if you decide to become a monk... The fifth precept is alcohol and drug consumption, so that's out too... No sex. No drugs. No rock and roll. Sounds awesome...

You advertise fundamental Buddhism (what you're describing) like it's the answer to everyone's problems.
You said in another thread that the world would be a beautiful place if everybody became monks...
But, ignoring the simple fact that we will die out as a species if we stop having sex, it would be boring.
I don't want to be a Catholic monk and I don't want to be a Buddhist monk either.
I like sex. I like music. There's nothing wrong with either of them.

You're on a drug forum, suggesting that drugs are absolutely wrong.
The third precept, about sex, doesn't suggest abstinence: I believe it is against rape.
It translates, roughly, to "sexual misconduct"... which is too vague.
It has been interpreted - fundamentally - to convince people that sex is bad.

Sex is bad?
What the fuck?
That's stupid.

You never heard of fundamental Buddhism, but you're describing people who can't listen to music and have sex? Doesn't that ring a couple of bells? How is it SO far removed from other fundamentalists who lead simple sexually abstinent lives, because they can't read between the lines?

I know a lot of Buddhists that would agree with me, on this.
I've talked to them about it. Most Buddhists aren't fundamentalists.

 

[murphythecat]

your the perfect example of judging without knowing.

sexual misconduct is very clear and well explained. dhamma wheel, access to insight may help you to clarify every question you may have

I do know. I mentioned to you, in at least one other thread, that you will probably be expected to be sexual abstinent if you decide to become a monk... The fifth precept is alcohol and drug consumption, so that's out too... No sex. No drugs. No rock and roll. Sounds awesome...

You advertise fundamental Buddhism (what you're describing) like it's the answer to everyone's problems.
You said in another thread that the world would be a beautiful place if everybody became monks...
But, ignoring the simple fact that we will die out as a species if we stop having sex, it would be boring.
I don't want to be a Catholic monk and I don't want to be a Buddhist monk either.
I like sex. I like music. There's nothing wrong with either of them.

You're on a drug forum, suggesting that drugs are absolutely wrong.
The third precept, about sex, doesn't suggest abstinence: I believe it is against rape.
It translates, roughly, to "sexual misconduct"... which is too vague.
It has been interpreted - fundamentally - to convince people that sex is bad.

Sex is bad?
What the fuck?
That's stupid.

 

[murphythecat]

you still have free will.

i don't believe our will is free, our will is an expresion of our frame of reference within the system of Existence. Your will is interdependent on a presxisting causal chain of being and has been molded according to your interaction of your genetic material and its environment.

 

[Ninae]

I believe the main reason it has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.

 

[ForEverAfter]

your the perfect example of judging without knowing.

I know exactly what I'm doing.

I believe the main reason it has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.

Victims of sex or victims of rape?
They're not the same thing.

 

[Ninae]

Of course victims of rape or abuse.

 

[turkalurk]

You need to re-read it.
I was responding to something you said, not RM..
So, how could it possibly indicate that I didn't know what he was talking about?
You described the grazing situation as "borrowing". That was what I was objecting to.
RM never said any such thing.




??

My post was criticizing your interpretation of hus quote from the Bible. The discussion is still about the priblems of wn absolutist approach. His passage wasn't actually about stealing, there was much more context involved then you implied by your paraphrasing of the passage.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Dude, you're drunk.
You can hardly type.

They didn't have fences and phones in the bible day.

They didn't have fences?

...

This is what you said, that I responded to:

I think 1 is inaccurate.


1. Its ok when an animal of yours enters your neighbor's yard and eats from their garden, when yours is bare, as long as you let you repay your neighbor with the best of your garden.

it doesn't say you yourself can, nor does it say you don't have to repay.

none of these are stealing more like a forced borrowing.

First of all: if you'd ever raised cattle, you wouldn't have said it was like borrowing. It's not. It's stealing.

Secondly:

If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

This doesn't say that it's okay to let your animals graze in another man's field.
It's saying if you steal, you should do the right thing and come clean and make amends.

...

If you steal a loaf of bread, then you go back and pay for it a week later, you still stole it.

 

[turkalurk]

What is my will free from? Ideas are rarely so absolute. To me, freedom as an abolute with no reference to contrast it with, make little sense. I find it strange you call yourself a Theravada Buddhist. It could be said that technically you are lying. What kind of instruction have you had?

 

[turkalurk]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks are ya. They had fences, but did not fence their entire property back then, no need to strawman, you knew ehwh I meant, did you not? Do you honestly believe they had a grid of fenced in property they contained their cattle in?

You fallacious arguments lack substance and did not even attempt to address the issue presented. Is your intent to communicate or win a conversation?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Of course victims of rape or abuse.

What does "it's not just a positive" mean, then?

I believe the main reason (rape) has been traditionally viewed as something bad by religons is seeing it from the victim's side - the assaulted men and women and the unwanted and neglected children. This has been, and still is, a serious problem. It's not just a positive.

...

Resorting to ad hominem attacks are ya.

No, I'm just saying: maybe you should get some rest.
You're struggling, more and more, to construct sentences properly as time goes on.

...

And, yes. There were farms with defined borders.
Otherwise the passage wouldn't make any sense.
You might be confusing nomadic herders with farmers.

 

[turkalurk]

here is my version of an ad hominem attack. I don't expect rationality from someone who argues whether or not he is an asian trapped in a caucasion's body.