[Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation

[Richard Hayes]

On Jul 7, 2011, at 23:32, "JKirkpatrick" <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:

> OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all
> vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat
> eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it.  Thus, I
> don't see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a
> relative statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug
> from an empirical viewpoint.

It's not meant to be an empirical statement. It can be seen as a hypothetical. IF one's preference for a vegetarian diet leads one to condemn others who have other dietary preferences, THEN it would be better to eat meat so that one can have empathy for those who do not prefer to be vegetarian. That statement in no way implies that vegetarians are bound to denigrate non-vegetarians; it simply states a possibility. 

Moral absolutists often avail themselves of the slippery slope fallacy. Americans have achieved excellence in employing that fallacy. The domino theory that drove the panic about the dangers of communism was based on it. The dread of same-sex marriage is based on it. Islamophobia is based on it. Arizona's laws against having courses in schools on ethnic diversity is based on it. 

Interstate 40 runs through Albuquerque. If I want to go visit Jim Peavler, I can get on I-40 and get to his house in ten minutes. If I had Michele Bachmann in the car, she'd say "Oh my God! Don't get on I-40, or you'll end up in Barstow, California." that's the form of thinking of most moral absolutists or perfectionists. 

Oh my God. I had better stop writing on Buddha-l or else I'll end up writing a Russian novel this morning. 

Richard