Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Detachment is the key. Don't even look into what happens to cows and pigs in the slaughterhouses.

Last edited by purehappiness (2010-03-05 16:05:09)

Yes, people are leaving it up to someone else to do the killing. Unfortunately, these people have no hearts and do other things to the meat too. It is scary.

I don't eat cow or pig but I still eat chicken and fish. I try to go with free range chicken and wild caught salmon and such. So, I am not perfect either.I guess there is no easy way out. I should become a total vegetarian but have not made it there yet. I guess I am a hypocrit and should not say anything.

I still can't see catching fish or hunting for sport though.

Last edited by purehappiness (2010-03-05 21:19:35)

purehappiness wrote:

I don't eat cow or pig

Buddha ate some bad pork, then in a blaze of glory, ascended into heaven. (Just kidding about the ascending into heaven part) I like killing, cooking and devouring turnip greens with a little extra virgin olive oil, no hogjowl! No way, man!.... And if the fish take the bait (especially the crappie and trout) that's just the way 'the rooster tail' spins. Damn, I'm hungry.

Tairaku, I think there is such a thing as "vegetarian" and "not eating meat."  They are both words that have been used to describe avoidance of animals.  While vegetarians certainly kill tons of eukaryotes, I think that it is possible to avoid animals to a fair degree.  So I think that one could live without killing animals, but as heterotrophs we do need to eat organisms (killed by us or by some other means).  The moral argument is linked to animals as opposed to organisms in general because animals are most likely the most aware of their existence and suffering.

Furthermore, I think that while it is interesting that humans likely needed to be omnivorous to attain our current brain development, I do not think that it implies any contradiction with the concept of vegetarianism.  I think people generally do it for environmental and moral reasons - both of which are independent of our past diets.

Kaz wrote:

Tairaku, I think there is such a thing as "vegetarian" and "not eating meat."  They are both words that have been used to describe avoidance of animals.  While vegetarians certainly kill tons of eukaryotes, I think that it is possible to avoid animals to a fair degree.  So I think that one could live without killing animals, but as heterotrophs we do need to eat organisms (killed by us or by some other means).  The moral argument is linked to animals as opposed to organisms in general because animals are most likely the most aware of their existence and suffering.

Furthermore, I think that while it is interesting that humans likely needed to be omnivorous to attain our current brain development, I do not think that it implies any contradiction with the concept of vegetarianism.  I think people generally do it for environmental and moral reasons - both of which are independent of our past diets.

What do you eat?

Tairaku wrote:

Musgo da Pedra wrote:

I have two cats that love honkyoku!

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc12 … Catjpg.png

Animals don't have taste, don't choose with instinct? Tha's anthropomorphize them? Ok, I puted words on their mouth. Well, at least this fat stay (almost every time) trowed in the floor with belly up when hearing honkyoku.

Gishin wrote:

All it comes down to is trying to consume what is best for our health and our environment those are the keypoints regardless of it being meat grains etc.

And to live with other beings as you REALLY FEEL as a way that keep you in peace. NOT ONLY IN WORDS. This is not something you can learn. It's inherent to everyone place in the the walking of life path.

Tairaku wrote:

There is no such thing as "vegetarian" or "not eating meat". Every time you open your mouth or inhale through your nostrils you ingest animals and they die. This is scientific fact that people were not aware of when such concepts as "vegetarianism" came about. If you don't want to kill animals you have to kill yourself. Everyone draws the line somewhere as we see above with "I eat fish and fowl but not pig and cow". I draw the line at human flesh, but some of my northern neighbors in New Guinea don't even stop there. The funny thing about this is that if our ancestors didn't eat meat we wouldn't have evolved enough to develop the brainpower to come up with such concepts as "vegetarianism".

Yeah, we kill bugs and other invisible animals all the time, but then we are like big meteors droping in some city in the Earth. As you said, we must kill ourselves if we don't want to do that.

But if you can't take the life of the being you will eat, why do you still eat those? If someone want to kill me to eat in a barbecue, congratulations, you deserve to have no hungry.


Here is a cd cover from a old brasilian punk band:





(edited some words)

Last edited by Musgo da Pedra (2010-03-06 08:07:11)

purehappiness wrote:

Boy, did I open another can of worms.

To each his own. As long as we feel we are trying to good at least that is something. I think when we frgagrantly hurt and kill with no remorse that is bad.The native american indians used to kill only to sustain themselves and they would use every bit of the animal they killed(furs, bones etc..). From what I understand they also paid their respects for the animal they just killed.They had it right. Factory farming on the other hand is quite the opposite.

While factory farming of animals may not be the best for the animal, society has still decided that they would rather have cheaper products that were easily available. The alternative would be a society that I think we would fail to recognize compared to how we are living now. In the end it came down to us or them.

Hey, Musgo!   The CD cover of the Brasilian punk band reminds me of my favorite holiday dish, leg of limb!     Thank you!    The guy in the photo is definitely a person you do not want to watch your back!    That photo alone reminds us to eat more grains and vegetables,  and to ease up on the jerky.

I'm just joking about your cats........I thought that was a funny image and you gave me an excuse to use it.

Cats are beneath my radar but in my experience dog's reaction to shakuhachi ranges from hypnotic trance where the "owner" could not get the dog to budge even by yanking on the leash to total howling hysteria and panic. But I wouldn't ascribe human emotions to those behaviors because I don't know why the dogs act that way.

As far as pets are concerned (sorry Jam but your thread was already truly hijacked a few pages ago) words like "owner" and "master" are loaded. Who's the master when you ask your friend to go out for a beer and he can't because he needs to go home to tend the dog? "Owner" and "master" imply a slave relationship.

Environmentally speaking dogs and cats are disasters. I permanently got over dogs when I moved to NYC and saw the mountains of shit and oceans of piss they spewed everywhere. I permanently got over cats when I developed an allergy to them because the owner of a recording studio I worked at was an "animal lover" and kept bringing in stray cats and dogs to the studio. I developed an allergy to cats which wasn't there before. Eventually said "animal lover" and his son both developed an allergy to cats and dogs and they had to jettison the beasts. That's what can happen when animals live in an enclosed space.

Why do people anthropomorphize dogs and cats to the point that they call them "members of the family" but munch happily on non-family members who are at a similar spot on the evolutionary scale?

My sister-in-law is a veterinarian and she says many pet owners have mental illnesses which come out in the way they overreact to their pet's woes and troubles. She had a client who paid her $3000 to operate on a cancerous goldfish. This is a true story! That 3k could have alleviated human suffering instead. Any society that has developed systems like this is sick. People have lost perspective on what their pets really are. They are not members of the family, they're animals.

The practice of pet breeding is anti-scientific. To intentionally create more and more inbred beasts who are prone to disease and defective from the start of their lives as a result of this practice is cruel and unnecessary. Then when these inbred animals get sick, people spend fortunes and waste their and other's time trying to alleviate the situation.

The pet food industry is another ridiculous situation. Expensive "special diet" food for animals? My wife is from Sri Lanka. There is no "pet food" there. They feed the animals whatever is left after the humans are finished eating. The animals are much healthier than the ones in the West and it's a good way to get rid of unwanted leftovers.

As far as the food issue is concerned it is amusing that people eat cows, lambs and pigs but shun venison and rabbit to give only two examples because of anthropomorphizing. Let's not even talk about dogs and cats which are food in some countries. I saw a rabbi on TV who said people who eat certain mammals and not others are hypocrites. He also compared the production of meat to the concentration camps.

We all make our own choices. Mine is "no pets" because I think it's environmentally wrong and unfair to the animals. And I eat organic meat and fish from sources I trust and which have been raised free-range and killed in a (relatively) humane manner. I'm against large scale meat production and willing to pay the price to get superior meat.

For the record, I am a vegetarian.  But I would be one of the first people in line to eat synthesized meat (assuming it is efficiently produced).

Kaz wrote:

For the record, I am a vegetarian.  But I would be one of the first people in line to eat synthesized meat (assuming it is efficiently produced).

I heard they are working on it at the moment. I wonder what the ethical viewpoint on that subject is from Buddhists, etc.