No announcement yet.

PETA bullshit

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    What if you just threw tens of thousands into the ocean? The current is bound to take a few to china
    The essential point in science it not a complicated mathematical formalism or a ritualized experimentation. Rather the heart of science is a kind of shrewd honesty the springs from really wanting to know what the hell is going on!


    • #77
      Cats and dogs fur in China is a known issue. I posted the video but here it is again
      It has been banned by the European Union from what i know.

      It is just an example of the cruelty to animals from men. There are many more examples in modern capitalist industry. Now the question is: do you want to be part of the process? To make a choice you also have to know what is going on, not being ruled by ignorance. For this, peta videos are useful. Here is another example about egg industry. Eggs are present in many products, you should be aware of what you eat. In buddhism it is called mindfulness.

      "A new investigation by our friends at Mercy for Animals has exposed once again the egg industry's horrific abuse of chickens. Workers at a supplier of NuCal—one of the largest egg companies in the U.S.—were documented ripping weakened birds out of tiny metal battery cages and throwing them violently into a "kill cart." Sick and injured birds were denied veterinary care and were left to die in filthy, crowded cages. Undercover investigators caught one worker twisting a sick bird's neck, throwing her on the ground, and leaving her to die.
      Watch the shocking video footage here."

      We usually discriminate between the animal and us. But if you eat it, when does it become you? In buddhism, the view of emptiness reminds us we cannot exist independently from food. In this way we should not discriminate between I and the animal's will and suffering. Why discriminate between I and a fish or chicken?

      In Hindhuism, Ganesha the elephant god is the son of Siva. It symbolizes the compassionate fact that we should treat animals as our sons. Would you eat your son? Would you kill your son if he wants to escape you? Why discriminate between your son and a fish or a chicken?

      The Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh says during the vietnamese war, the US troops discriminated between their suffering and the vietnamese suffering. The US troops killed many vietnamese civilians. Doesnt this discrimination came from discriminating between us and the suffering of animals?

      Peace and love


      • #78
        Why discriminate between your son and a fish or a chicken?


        • #79
          Originally posted by liutangsanzang View Post

          It is just an example of the cruelty to animals from men. There are many more examples in modern capitalist industry.
          It is just an example of the cruelty to animals from Chinese. We don't treat our dogs like that in America. Or Europe for that matter. In fact, we don't treat any animals that we eat like that. Cooking them when they are alive?

          You do that to lobsters. And even those, we put in head first so that they don't scream. (It's thought that putting them in tail first causes them to experience pain, which is cruel. It's also thought that pain causes chemical release which makes the meat tough, but that's a tough argument to swallow. Excuse the pun..) Bet you didn't know that.

          We westerners, we be nice people.
          Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

          "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

          (more comments in my User Profile)


          • #80
            what you seem to be insinuating is that all non-vegetarians are "speciesists;"which, is to say, you believe animals deserve full moral status equal to that of humans.

            i know you have trouble answering my questions, but what do you do if your son, daughter, and "pet fish or chicken" are all burning in a house, drowning, or about to fall of a cliff? you can only save one. who do you save? and why?

            again, if said line began here 0. | ---------and extended to----------| 100.0 here, then where would the line rest? why doesn't it extend to plants? trees? flowers? rivers? mountains? etc.? aren't they all alive?

            it seems the only way one could actually draw a line... is by somehow rationalizing the situation to suite a specific paradigm of thought. although the idea is to give rights to animals and insects, it assumes that man, with our capacity for compassion, should not be granted the same rights as other beings. we say, animals may kill other animals, insects, and even human beings, but humans (on the other hand) are morally bound to not kill at all.

            clearly this line of thinking is contradictory to what you're attempting to achieve, which is equality. you end up putting man on a pedestal, whereby animals and insects are being prejudged and regarded as lesser species as a direct result.

            if you can offer a clear argument for the equality of species, please go ahead. otherwise, i'm afraid you'll just be wasting your time.... talking yourself into circles.... in order to persuade others (without any real footing to base it all on)... and wonder why people aren't listening....
            Last edited by onesp1ng; 05-23-2008, 07:24 PM.


            • #81
              what you seem to be insinuating is that all non-vegetarians are "speciesists;"
              Humanists, specifically. The horror.


              • #82
                Originally posted by liutangsanzang View Post
                The US troops killed many vietnamese civilians.
                That's true, but what's not mentioned is that many of Viet Cong (the enemy that the US was fighting) were dressed like civilians. The Viet Cong would use women and children much like the suicide bombers of today to attack platoons.

                While I agree with Thay (Thich Nhat Hanh) with his comment, I think, no I know that you took it out of context.
                "For some reason I'm in a good mood today. I haven't left the house yet, though. "

                "fa hui, you make buddhism sexy." -Zachsan

                "Friends don't let friends do Taekwondo." -Nancy Reagan


                • #83
                  Yes Steve, that was way too far.

                  Also, maybe on a side note, I've always though it was incredibly arrogant to presume vegetarianism is in any way ethically superior. (animals are more deserving of mercy because they are more like us?) Several plants have been observed to contain nueral webs, and some plant species have been scientifically documented as communicating with each other using pheromones to express the fact that one tree in a grove is suffering tissue damage due to predation. The notion that significant tissue damage and death is not distressing to specifc forms of life, but is to others, is absurd.

                  Everytime you eat anything, you are taking life. Show some respect for all of it, not just the life forms that happen to have faces.
                  Show me a man who has forgotten words, so that I can have a word with him.


                  • #84
                    Doc, i guess you are being ironic when you say that western dont treat animals the way chinese do. What about the clubbing of baby seals, the internal injuries of duck for foie gras, the castration of pigs without pain relief, the caged chicken for eggs, the mulesing of sheeps, etc

                    Meet your meat
                    YouTube - Meet your Meat

                    One, interesting question. I think suffering is a kind of absolute. There is equality in suffering. Is it less cruel to skin a dog alive than to skin a man alive? The same goes whith the will to live. Is it less cruel to take a fish out of water against its will than to drown somebody?

                    Where i draw a line is on the capacity of suffering and expressing a will. Tomatoes do not seem to suffer and express a will. Chicken do.

                    What about you? Where do you draw a line? Why not kill a baby to eat it? Apart from social laws i dont see where there is a line between a baby and a dog. Animal activists think the rights for animals from the point of view of their interest, which is an anglo saxon view, opposed to the continental view, which sees rights from the point of view of moral autonomy. The problem with the continental view of moral autonomy is that it excludes children and retarded persons for instance.

                    As to who i would save, i d save the human because he has a deeper understanding of suffering. By saving him, i potentially save a non violent person. Of course the problem with the understanding of suffering is that i can save somebody who will be evil, sadistic, who will like to spend his money on video games instead of helping the poor or that will go to have food at KFC.

                    Regarding this understanding of suffering, i tend not to pose equality between species but i pose equality in terms of suffering and having the right to choose one's death. So if from the point of view of understanding the suffering of every living being humans are superiors, i think they can make the choice not to kill a living being that expresses the will to continue living, and by such differenciate from other species. Not to kill maybe the key to human superiority and understanding of suffering.

                    Also can you answer this question? When does the animal become you when you eat it? Why do you discriminate his suffering and will to live?

                    Dao, u also make an interesting point, but can you be more precise. From what i see, the vegetables i eat do not have any suffering nor express a will to live. I ve heard some trees would emit some chemicals when eaten, but do tomatoes do? Can you tell us more about this?

                    You say:"The notion that significant tissue damage and death is not distressing to specifc forms of life, but is to others, is absurd" But do all plants have such characteristics? What about carots? Arent tomatoes a counter example to your general view?

                    You also say to show respect is the key。 But how do you show respect? If i show respect and i kill some human will that be ok? How do you define respect? Where do you draw the line with killing humans?

                    Peace and love
                    Last edited by liutangsanzang; 05-27-2008, 01:39 PM.


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by liutangsanzang View Post
                      Is it less cruel to skin a dog alive than to skin a man alive?
                      Depends on the man.

                      I've known quite a few that more than deserved it.
                      Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                      "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                      (more comments in my User Profile)


                      • #86
                        As the times have brought a toilet karma to Doc, i think it might be interesting to consider again the question of vegetarianism in relation with mystics, freedom and violence.

                        As we go to learn Shaolin Gong Fu, if we are interested to study something else than gymnastics, we have to consider the buddhist philosophy of Shaolin. Coming to learn, we should give up our habits and come with a curious heart to learn something different. Being a vegetarian is a part of Mahayana buddhism and we should enquire into this and try understand it instead of judging it from our past beliefs. What is the experience of being a vegetarian, has it do to with compassion or mystical abilities? How can we claim to practice shaolin gong fu if we come as masters of knowing to eat meat is perfect non violence? We should recognize ourselves as ignorants and sincerely try to learn about vegetarianism.

                        Here are what some chinese shaolin masters wrote at

                        In the Shaolin Temple we use to eat Dofu, eggs, rice, noodles, vegetables. All foods are usually boiled or stir fried. When stir-fried they use soybean oil, peanut oil, sunflower oil.
                        So, are all Shaolin vegetarians?
                        They ought to be.
                        The first of Buddhism’s Ten Precepts is, ”Refrain from destroying life.”
                        Mahakashyapa asked the Buddha,
                        “Why is it that the Thus Come One does not allow eating meat?’
                        The Buddha replied,
                        “It is because meat-eating cuts off the seeds of great compassion.”
                        Based on the following story, some Shaolin Monks had developed a wrong theory, which is totally against of Mahayana Path, which Shaolin Monks follows.
                        There is a mural entitled Thirteen Shaolin Cudgelling Monks Rescue the Emperor of the Tang Dynasty on the walls of Baiyi Hall. It depicts the fight for power toward the end of Sui Dynasty between Prince Qin (599-649) and General Wang Shichong (?-621). At the crucial moment, monks from the Shaolin Temple came to help Prince Qin attack Wang Shichong’s army from behind and win victory. When Prince Qin came to power as Emperor Tai Zong of the Tang Dynasty, he conferred titles on the monks, granted land to the Shaolin Temple, and issued a special edict that allowed the monks to eat meat and drink wine.
                        Eating meat and drinking alcohol are cardinal sins in Mahayana Buddhism. Any Mahayana monk found eating meat or drinking alcohol would be expelled from the monastic order immediately. None is above the Lord Buddha no man no Emperor. Scriptures must be followed not be ignored.
                        As my Great Master used to say:
                        Becoming a Shaolin monk marks one of the highest points in a person’s life. It calls for great sacrifice and dedication, and should be undertaken only after very serious and thorough consideration. If a monk cannot resist worldly temptations like eating meat and drinking alcohol, he should leave his monk hood because he would be blatantly disrespecting his sacred Shaolin monastic order

                        From Lankavatara Sutra

                        This Sutra was a discussion of the fundamental concepts of Mahayana Buddhism. Chapter Eight is entirely devoted to the prohibition of meat eating. As we know Patriarch Bodhidharma taught Shaolin Monks from this book, only.

                        “The Blessed One said this to Mahamati:

                        For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat.”

                        “Now, Mahamati, the food I have permitted (my disciples to take) is gratifying to all wise people but is avoided by the unwise; it is productive of many merits, it keeps away many evils; and it has been prescribed by the ancient Rishis. It comprises rice, barley, wheat, kidney beans, beans, lentils, etc., clarified butter, oil, honey, molasses, treacle, sugar cane, coarse sugar, etc.; food prepared with these is proper food.”

                        “If, Mahamati, meat is not eaten by anybody for any reason, there will be no destroyer of life. Mahamati, in the majority of cases the slaughtering of innocent living beings is done for pride and very rarely for other causes.”

                        “It is not true, Mahamati, that meat is proper food and permissible for the Sravaka ( a hearer, hence a pupil or beginner) when (the victim) was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it. When it was not specially meant for him.”

                        “Thus, Mahamati, meat eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit.”
                        Theravada monks supports that they can eat meat because it is their tradition to accept food given by their followers, and their followers may sometimes give them meat. This is also wrong. In the Maha Parinirvana sutra, there is a conversation between one of Lord Buddha’s followers, Mahakashyapa, and Lord Buddha Himself.
                        Mahakashyapa asked Buddha:
                        “When we beg and are given vegetables mixed with meat, can we eat this food? How can we clean this food?”
                        Buddha replied:
                        “One should clean it with water and separate the vegetables from the meat, then one can eat it.”
                        So it is obvious from the teachings of Lord Buddha that eating meat is not acceptable, even if it is obtained from begging.


                        • #87
                          Here is a video by the french philosopher Derrida about animals.

                          He says that to put so animals, plural, under the same concept of animal, singular, is already a violence made to them, putting them already inside a cage, a violence that leads to more violence against them in the real life, like slaughterhouses.

                          Peace and love

                          [ame=""]YouTube - Derrida Interviews - Animals[/ame]


                          Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                          Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove