[Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation

[JKirkpatrick]

OK Richard--hypothetical argumentation as a function of your
discipline is AOK, but language statements are statements. There
are _other ways_ of interpreting statements.  
Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with your stated
"possibility of denigrating non-vegetarians", or denigrating
anyone, for that matter. 

You didn't read what I wrote. OR, you misconstrued what I
wrote--probably because you want to harp on some people
denigrating other people, or the possibility of doing so.  This
_denigration theme_ is one of your favorite discussion topics, we
have seen it before, probably when you are not feeling too well,
or suffering indigestion-- but it is not mine (unless we are
talking about the Lotus Sutra). 

So please do not attribute such viewpoints to me.  

Joanna


-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Hayes
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:07 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation

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
_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l