Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, I gave up meat eating at age 50 or so because that was easier on my conscience than contiue meat eating. I was a vegetarian right upto age 18 or so because that was the way all our family ate. As regards your 2nd querry, I simply do not know. But may be because the scything the plants is easier on our conscience than butchering animals.
Actually fallen fruit are new unborn plants. But no, I said nothing of guilt, I just want to understand your logic.
[b]No one this world be totally free from this sort of violence. Yet it is exceedingly easier on my conscience, if I do not eat meat than when I am a meat eater.
And I want to understand why. Why is it easier to kill a plant than an animal?[/b]
1 edit
If anyone comes down my way I'll take you out to a Batak restaurant (the Bataks are the indigenous people of North Sumatera) that serves their renowned pork and dog recipes. Very simple place. Just those two kinds of meat on the menu, plus rice, plus pureed cassava leaves. The pork comes either dry (albeit still tender) and rather crispy towards the rind or 'wet' in a blood based gravy. Lovers of black pudding will not bat an eyelid. The dog meat is cooked in sauce only; it's a gamey kind of meat, with a sort of built-in slightly 'hot' peppery edge to it (a bit like kangaroo in that respect, but not like cobra/snake meat whose peppery taste is a more herby one, while the overall taste is reminiscent of a pork chop, albeit often a bit more chewy). Both pork and dog are taboo for Muslims (although it doesn't stop a fair few of them eating them) and they disagree about whether horse meat is halal. Broadly speaking, beef here (in Indonesia) is not impressive and I don't eat much of it; soups and the occasional 'kebab' or smoked beef (for a salad or sandwich).
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFMeat is murder!
If anyone comes down my way I'll take you out to a Batak restaurant (the Bataks are the indigenous people of North Sumatera) that serves their renowned pork and dog recipes. Very simple place. Just those two kinds of meat on the menu, plus rice, plus pureed cassava leaves. The pork comes either dry (albeit still tender) and rather crispy towards the rind or 'wet much of it; soups and the occasional 'kebab' or smoked beef (for a salad or sandwich).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReligiously inspired murderers of the Muslim persuasion in Indonesia are unlikely to eat pork whereas if they are of the Christian kind, then they probably enjoy eating pork and see it as being entwined with their identity. Many Hindus in Bali do not eat beef but you do see a lot of pork restaurants there.
murderers!
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes, it stands to reason 🙂 what about alcohol consumption, are our Muslim friends as
Religiously inspired murderers of the Muslim persuasion in Indonesia are unlikely to eat pork whereas if they are of the Christian kind, then they probably enjoy eating pork and see it as being entwined with their identity. Many Hindus in Bali do not eat beef but you do see a lot of pork restaurants there.
insistent to uphold their beliefs in this regard? The Indonesians i have met were very
gentle people, remarkably so.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThank you for the honest answer. I am not criticizing you, I just wanted to understand your reasoning. I too feel some guilt at eating meat and I too do not know how to justify it.
As regards your 2nd querry, I simply do not know. But may be because the scything the plants is easier on our conscience than butchering animals.
Currently I have an even more complicated moral dilemma:
My cat is a good hunter and regularly brings in his catches. This includes birds, mice, mole rats, moles, and a snake. Now some of these are pests (the rat, mole rats and moles) and some are desirable garden residents (the birds). But they are all living things with similar intelligence and similar ability to suffer.
I could get rid of my cat or lock him up in the house, but then he suffers.
Also I have read studies that suggest that the predation of house cats deters other predators, ie if we remove the cats, then something else will eat their prey. In some cases the something else is less desirable for example, my sister keeps cats on her farm because it results in less snakes (which are often poisonous), with the side benefit of keeping the rat population down - although I am not sure rats are entirely undesirable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDrinking dirt cheap gut rot booze is rather surprisingly common (although still a tiny minority) among urban poor or semi-employed. Tangling with such gloomy, loitering, inebriated 'underclass' types does not always bring the idea of "gentle people" to mind, as you can imagine. Having a few beers is becoming a little more commonplace among younger people - more so in cities - but still the social pursuit of a small minority. The quality of foreign wine available has improved enormously and reflects the dramatic growth in the middle class in the last 7-8 years.
Yes, it stands to reason 🙂 what about alcohol consumption, are our Muslim friends as
insistent to uphold their beliefs in this regard? The Indonesians i have met were very
gentle people, remarkably so.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI strongly urge you to leave your cat and his/her quarry to their ways/fate, as i)you have no right to play God to these creatures. ii) you yourself are unable to give up meat eating, although you do have some reservations about it. That being so, how can you force any carnivore which acts in these matters purely by instinct, to act as if it has any conscience.
Thank you for the honest answer. I am not criticizing you, I just wanted to understand your reasoning. I too feel some guilt at eating meat and I too do not know how to justify it.
Currently I have an even more complicated moral dilemma:
My cat is a good hunter and regularly brings in his catches. This includes birds, mice, mole rats, moles, and a snake ...[text shortened]... nefit of keeping the rat population down - although I am not sure rats are entirely undesirable.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoBut I do play God to theses creatures all the time. I live in a man made suburb of Cape Town. Even the river just outside my garden runs through a concrete canal.
I strongly urge you to leave your cat and his/her quarry to their ways/fate, as i)you have no right to play God to these creatures.
But more importantly, if you genuinely believe in a moral position, then you are 'playing God'. I don't see how it is not a moral imperative to impose it on others. If I believe it is wrong to murder, I must try to stop murderers even when I am not the one being murdered. I don't sit back and refuse to play God.
ii) you yourself are unable to give up meat eating, although you do have some reservations about it. That being so, how can you force any carnivore which acts in these matters purely by instinct, to act as if it has any conscience.
I am actually not convinced that animals act purely by instinct and that we do not. I think animals can think a lot more than you give them credit for, and that we act by instinct a lot more than you may realise. I also don't buy the hypocrite argument. My decision regarding the morality of one situation should not be affected by my failure to abide by my moral judgement on another.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMorals govern action of humans. Morality is no issue with animals.How can you impose your moral system on amoral animals ? Also what is your dilemma,then?
But I do play God to theses creatures all the time. I live in a man made suburb of Cape Town. Even the river just outside my garden runs through a concrete canal.
But more importantly, if you genuinely believe in a moral position, then you are 'playing God'. I don't see how it is not a moral imperative to impose it on others. If I believe it is wrong to ...[text shortened]... e situation should not be affected by my failure to abide by my moral judgement on another.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoDo you also avoid by products from animals like leather wallets, belts and shoes? What about jello and products from gelatin?
Well, I gave up meat eating at age 50 or so because that was easier on my conscience than contiue meat eating. I was a vegetarian right upto age 18 or so because that was the way all our family ate. As regards your 2nd querry, I simply do not know. But may be because the scything the plants is easier on our conscience than butchering animals.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTypical hypocrital JW. Ignore the teachings of the Bible and make up rules.
Meat is murder!
1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI disagree. Why should morals only govern human actions? More importantly in this case, why shouldn't my human morals govern the actions of animals I am in control of?
Morals govern action of humans. Morality is no issue with animals.How can you impose your moral system on amoral animals ? Also what is your dilemma,then?
My dilemma is figuring out:
1. Whether harming animals or allowing them to come to harm is morally wrong.
2. If yes, how to achieve this in a complex situation. Should I apply it to pests such as mole rats that dig up the lawn, or only birds that I like to listen to?
3. If yes, am I not morally obligated to eliminate all carnivores, or at least minimize their actions (unless there is some other conflicting moral imperative).