Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian. Any thoughts? - Page 4 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 Old 10-19-2009, 09:46 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,550
closed at the request of the OP
jeneticallymodified is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#92 Old 10-19-2009, 10:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Fyvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,664
Mod Post



Moved to compost heap.
Fyvel is offline  
#93 Old 10-19-2009, 10:43 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post

Again really - Buddhism is, as are other religions, tied up in CULTURAL beliefs also. These CULTURAL beliefs sometimes override the spiritual. This does not make someone any less Buddhist nor does it mean they lack 'intestinal fortitude'. It simply means they do not believe that animals fall into the same category as a living being as humans. This is the same in Christinaity. Americans slaughter people every day on death row yet claim to be a Christian nation. Jesus preached compassion for all living beings and yet animals do not count in Christianty.



This has nothing to do with what religion people are it comes down to their personal beliefs and their own path.

Also Buddhism is not as simple as saying you are a Buddhist. You can also be a follower or sympathiser of Buddha but not necessarily be a Buddhist. This is what you do not seem to understand. It is not as clear cut as getting Baptised and bam you are a Buddhist. Buddhism is journey that starts in taking refuge - a ceremony akin to Baptisim - you do not necessarily take the path of a Bodhisattva as a Buddhist. If you choose this path you take the five precepts - another ceremony (often two to three days long) and you sometimes mark yourself as being on the path to becoming a Bodhisattva - three round circles burned into your flesh with incense pyramids - you see these on the heads of nuns, reverends etc. The average 'Buddhist' that you meet has not gone beyond prostrating and chanting and is very likely still eating meat. This does not make them less Buddhist it just means they have chosen not to take the same path.

what I am trying to get across to you is that while we are told not to kill or harr living beings - depending on your path - you may or may not follow this. It does not make them hypocritical. It took me a long time to understand this and conversations with Reverends certainly helped clarify it for me. I do not expect anything of others I can only look inward and understand and improve what I do. This is not an easy thing to do especially in a world that is very quick to judge without making the effort to investigate, explore or empathise.



You can tie yourself in knots trying to understand why people eat meat and still believe in 'not killing any living beings' or you can let it go and try to understand that it is not them you need to think about its yourself.



Are you an ethical vegetarian?

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#94 Old 10-20-2009, 12:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
thefragile77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 431
In response to your post pixelle yes i am an ethical vegan.I was so before i became a buddhist. My ethics however prevent me from trying to force others into taking up my choices. I provide information when it is Sought but i don't see what right i have to get in others faces about their choices. Especially seeing as i'm typing this from my specialists waiting room waiting for an injection into my left eyeball to prevent me going blind. The drug was and probably is tested on animals. I feel awful bout that but when going blind is my other option the decision was easy. There is nothing else to help the condition. I'm not sure what you are getting at in asking that really as ethics are highly personal and it still doesn't change my reasoning.
thefragile77 is offline  
#95 Old 10-20-2009, 02:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I think llamas are cooler than lamas. People should consider more llamas as spiritual leaders, instead of some lamas.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#96 Old 10-20-2009, 02:44 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I think llamas are cooler than lamas. People should consider more llamas as spiritual leaders, instead of some lamas.



Time again for this: http://gprime.net/flash.php/llamasong
mlp is offline  
#97 Old 10-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
#98 Old 10-20-2009, 11:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577
Fragile, I needed to know if you were an ethical vegan before proceeding with the next question I had, because if you weren't, the question would be irrelevant.





Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post

In response to your post pixelle yes i am an ethical vegan.I was so before i became a buddhist. My ethics however prevent me from trying to force others into taking up my choices. I provide information when it is Sought but i don't see what right i have to get in others faces about their choices.





This is purely a discussion on a vegetarian board, how are we "getting in others faces" by talking amongst ourselves about how we, as individual veg*ns, feel about this issue of the DL eating meat? IMO, how you answer it comes down to YOUR ethics not those of other people who eat meat.



Quote:
Especially seeing as i'm typing this from my specialists waiting room waiting for an injection into my left eyeball to prevent me going blind. The drug was and probably is tested on animals. I feel awful bout that but when going blind is my other option the decision was easy. There is nothing else to help the condition. I'm not sure what you are getting at in asking that really as ethics are highly personal and it still doesn't change my reasoning.





You don't have much alternative other than taking the medicine to stop your visual deficit progressing, but people DO have an alternative to eating animals, so the comparison of those two dilemmas doesn't really hold up in an argument. I agree, it's not right to force people into taking up your vegan lifestyle as you said, but you're not even showing any disapproval of them eating animals on an intellectual level even. You actually seem to be defending their animal eating because of your religious beliefs. Do you think that Buddhism has perhaps deprived you of your objectivity and consistency in this particular ethical argument?

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
#99 Old 10-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

I find this view and phrasing offensive. 55 BILLION land animals are killed every year for meat, and most of them lived lives of birth to death torture.



Tough nuggies. You seem content to ignore the murders and persecutions of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Tibetans. [mod edit] I am really not interested in anything else you have to say. You have no credibility as far as I am concerned.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Not sure why you need to make the comparison



Not sure why you insist on ignoring the comparison.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

but when you say "as though the lives of Tibetan humans are less important than veal calves" you seem to be saying that the horrific deaths of these animals are less important - in fact you say that the issue of animal death and suffering discussed here is "a relatively trivial issue."



I guess you live in a parallel universe. In the one I live in, 97 percent of the people eat meat. Yet you feel content to harp on the dietary habits of a leader of a people which has been the object of genocide. And you don't seen to care about that. I'd say that makes your moral perspective something worthy of my utter contempt.
Joe is offline  
#100 Old 10-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

I think it's a little ridiculous that here is a guy who supposedly represents non-materialistic Buddhist values, and yet he's getting around the world in first class travel and accommodation, and eating food made by top class chefs on what is basically the celeb circuit for a large part of his time. It's pretty strange. Having said that though, he still makes a lot of sense when you hear him speak - not that I'm into it at all.



Religious "authorities" are the biggest hypocrites, jus like politicians.



I have yet to see anyone in power who actually lives up to the standards/ideals that they promote.

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#101 Old 10-20-2009, 02:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I think llamas are cooler than lamas. People should consider more llamas as spiritual leaders, instead of some lamas.



Horses are prettier.
Marie is offline  
#102 Old 10-20-2009, 05:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Tough nuggies. You seem content to ignore the murders and persecutions of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Tibetans. That makes you a callous racist in my book. I am really not interested in anything else you have to say. You have no credibility as far as I am concerned.


"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#103 Old 10-20-2009, 06:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
adam antichrist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Tough nuggies. You seem content to ignore the murders and persecutions of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Tibetans. [edited] I am really not interested in anything else you have to say. You have no credibility as far as I am concerned.







Not sure why you insist on ignoring the comparison.







I guess you live in a parallel universe. In the one I live in, 97 percent of the people eat meat. Yet you feel content to harp on the dietary habits of a leader of a people which has been the object of genocide. And you don't seen to care about that. I'd say that makes your moral perspective something worthy of my utter contempt.



are you a politician? Because this is the lowest form of argument. But in your defence, the ad hom only arose since Irizary got sucked in by your strawman. Yet you didn't bother addressing other points people made, such as this:



Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

utterly utterly ridiculous. In the extreme. Is it ok for the leader of israel to eat meat because jews were victims of genocide last century? We are discussing the subject of someone who represents compassion for the buddhist religion being a meathead. If you are not interested in the discussion being held here, then don't participate. I'm sure there are genocide threads around if you want to talk about that. Or you could even start a new one!

adam antichrist is offline  
#104 Old 10-20-2009, 06:47 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

are you a politician? Because this is the lowest form of argument. But in your defence, the ad hom only arose since Irizary got sucked in by your strawman. Yet you didn't bother addressing other points people made, such as this:



That's what he does. Joe pops into a thread, posts a [usually irrelevant and/or off-topic] link or quote of some sort, and then proceeds to commit a plethora of logical fallacies.



Here he concludes that Irizary is a [mod edit to remove quoted personal attack] because she "ignores" the persecution of Tibetans in a thread that is specifically about the Dalai Lama's diet, not Tibetans' struggles. She's not ignoring the persecution; she's rightfully claiming it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and attempts to stay on topic.



Also see this thread. The OP asks if forum members would date a hunter, so good ole Joe comes by and quotes the definition of the word vegetarian, then claims that others are ignoring the definition of the word by stating they would not date a hunter. (No one was even claiming it might be inconsistent to be a vegetarian and date a hunter, BTW. And we all know the definition of the word doesn't even mention dating preferences.)



[edit to remove personal attack]
GhostUser is offline  
#105 Old 10-20-2009, 06:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Princess Peach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegEnigma View Post




He's a cancer to these boards.



How come I never get away with saying things like that?
Princess Peach is offline  
#106 Old 10-20-2009, 06:51 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Peach View Post

How come I never get away with saying things like that?



I probably won't.
GhostUser is offline  
#107 Old 10-20-2009, 06:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegEnigma View Post


Also see this thread. The OP asks if forum members would date a hunter, so good ole Joe comes by and quotes the definition of the word vegetarian, then claims that others are ignoring the definition of the word by stating they would not date a hunter. (No one was even claiming it might be inconsistent to be a vegetarian and date a hunter, BTW. And we all know the definition of the word doesn't even mention dating preferences.)

May I remind you of the definition of 'vegetarian'. The IVU definition of 'vegetarian' is perfectly compatible with refuting statements or presuppositions that no one has made.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#108 Old 10-20-2009, 06:57 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenseas View Post

may i remind you of the definition of 'vegetarian'. The ivu definition of 'vegetarian' is perfectly compatible with refuting statements or presuppositions made by no one in a thread.



GhostUser is offline  
#109 Old 10-20-2009, 07:14 PM
Beginner
 
_sharon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 173
To each his own.



Meh, what others are doing are not really something I am too concerned about. It's mainly what I am doing. Me, me, me! Haha, self-centered much?
_sharon is offline  
#110 Old 10-20-2009, 07:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Fyvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,664
Mod Post



Please keep the personal attacks out of it. The attacks have been deleted, as well as some responses to them. If you see a personal attack refrain from responding and just report it and let the mods deal with it. Use your judgment, if you think something you are saying is a personal attack, it probably is, and is probably best left unsaid.
Fyvel is offline  
#111 Old 10-20-2009, 07:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Her Jazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post






You don't have much alternative other than taking the medicine to stop your visual deficit progressing, but people DO have an alternative to eating animals, so the comparison of those two dilemmas doesn't really hold up in an argument. I agree, it's not right to force people into taking up your vegan lifestyle as you said, but you're not even showing any disapproval of them eating animals on an intellectual level even. You actually seem to be defending their animal eating because of your religious beliefs. Do you think that Buddhism has perhaps deprived you of your objectivity and consistency in this particular ethical argument?



I know this wasn't addressed to me...but seeing as I follow a somewhat similar path to thefragile77 I'd like to kind of put my own spin on this.



Buddhism (and similarly Hinduism and other like paths) particularly supports a vegetarian/vegan way of life. (in fact, in a general sense to make any real progress you MUST follow a vegetarian diet)

However, unfortunately, a lot of it's followers do not try to adhere to the path of Ahimsa (non-violence). Especially in modern day, a lot of followers find the idea of a vegetarian diet to be old fashioned and next to impossible. ("It's too hard" is the excuse I've heard from a few)

It could be (IMO) that the Dalai Lama is trying to be trendy or modern by being a non-veg.



This type of spiritual path though is extremely open. Because in a weird way it isn't really a religion. You can follow it 100% and be a true person of the path, but there are many people who don't follow 100% and would still be considered in the same group. The reason for this is that everyone is seen as being at different levels of the same over all path (generally regardless of religion etc.). Therefore judging others is frowned upon as you might actually discourage them from improvement. Instead, teaching by example is encouraged and anything more aggressive is seen as something akin to trying to convert.

So, judging the Dalai Lama's Buddhist-ness (I think I just invented something)is not really possible. It would be more accurate to gauge his actual level of spirituality in general.
Her Jazz is offline  
#112 Old 10-20-2009, 11:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
thefragile77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

Fragile, I needed to know if you were an ethical vegan before proceeding with the next question I had, because if you weren't, the question would be irrelevant.











This is purely a discussion on a vegetarian board, how are we "getting in others faces" by talking amongst ourselves about how we, as individual veg*ns, feel about this issue of the DL eating meat? IMO, how you answer it comes down to YOUR ethics not those of other people who eat meat.









You don't have much alternative other than taking the medicine to stop your visual deficit progressing, but people DO have an alternative to eating animals, so the comparison of those two dilemmas doesn't really hold up in an argument. I agree, it's not right to force people into taking up your vegan lifestyle as you said, but you're not even showing any disapproval of them eating animals on an intellectual level even. You actually seem to be defending their animal eating because of your religious beliefs. Do you think that Buddhism has perhaps deprived you of your objectivity and consistency in this particular ethical argument?



This is my last word on the subject because it is tiring and you do not seem to understand what I am trying to get across to you.

As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live. My OWN ethics - prevent me from telling my family and friends that their meat eating is horrific to me. MY ethics mean that I lead by example. Practising non-violence does not just mean not slapping them into sense. I try to practise non-violent attitudes and non-confrontational behaviours also - obviously I'm not perfect.



I also defend anyone's right to have their own ethics which may or may not include eating meat. I don't agree with it but its their right not mine or yours to stop them. I have been known to protest things like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan however I do not equate the murder of civilians with meat eating. Again this is my ethical stance not yours.

As for your last comment I think your issue is with religion and philosophies such as Buddhism and not with anything I'm saying - after all who are you to question my ethics? I don't question yours as they are not mine to take issue with.



I am more objective now than I have ever been and more consistent in my veg*nism and ethics. I do not compare myselves to others - this is perhaps what is confusing to you. What you believe about my approach [to ethics or veg*nsim] makes no difference to my ethics, life or existence.





thefragile77 is offline  
#113 Old 10-21-2009, 05:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
I thought one of the precepts of Buddhism was not to harm a sentient being. Animals are considered sentient in Eastern philosophy. Is it ok as long as it's not him that does the harming? Doesn't seem very Buddhist to me.
Andromache is offline  
#114 Old 10-21-2009, 06:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post


As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live.

So if you saw someone abusing their pets or their kids, you wouldn't feel you have the right to comment and tell them how to live? You would merely try to lead by example, and hope that you not kicking dogs or beating kids with a belt would help those others to make changes?



If that is the case, then you are consistent but also highly irresponsible and an enabler of abuse. On the other hand, if that is not the case, and you would feel the need to comment or interfere in some way in that kind of abuse, then you would have the appropriate response to violence, but you would be oh-so-selective in picking and choosing which kinds of values and ways of life deserve your objection and which do not.



That the exploitation of animals is distanced from the acts of the consumer does not make it any less any less violent and hurtful towards animals who get their throats cut or cannot turn around, and it does not make it any less deserving of objection than any other violence. To disguise moral cowardice and political passivity as "tolerance" would be a dishonesty, and any religious beliefs which have that as a consequence seem highly suspect to me.



Quote:
I also defend anyone's right to have their own ethics which may or may not include eating meat.

What if someone's ethics include the idea that it's okay to take a belt and beat their kids into submission? I guess you would not "equate" that with meat-eating. Hell, I wouldn't either -- I'd rather be beaten with a belt than live my whole life in intense confinement and then be slaughtered -- but that does nothing to prevent me from having a strong objection to both practices.



Ultimately, all this talk about "it's not my right to comment on someone else's life choices" etc. comes down to the anthropocentric and hierarchical idea that "they're just animals".



I'll add that it would be a false dilemma to assume only two choices: 1) being completely passive about meat-eating 2) screaming "murderer!" to meat-eaters' faces. You can object to animal cruelty and express your moral values in various constructive and productive ways.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#115 Old 10-21-2009, 09:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
adam antichrist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post


Ultimately, all this talk about "it's not my right to comment on someone else's life choices" etc. comes down to the anthropocentric and hierarchical idea that "they're just animals".





Personally I love it when members of religion come knocking on my door telling me that I'm going to hell for my sinful ways. I also enjoy it when white supremacists cheerfully inform me that I am a race traitor for belonging to a message board which is open to various ethnicities.



yes, I think the world is a better place for all the people who are convinced their morals are the only way to provide us with integrity. But sadly, not everyone agrees with me. Some people would rather have their opinions respected, since it is their choice to be ****wits!



I like to argue with these sorts of people until I'm blue in the face, in the vain hope that it may convince them to adopt my viewpoint.
adam antichrist is offline  
#116 Old 10-21-2009, 09:51 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
When I say something about animal cruelty to friends and family I only do so rarely. Otherwise I'll be seen as the person not to invite out anymore. Then I'd have no friends. I do however rarely make my point so that it is at least somewhat engraved into their heads.



With my husband however. He's the poor omni who hears my wrath :] but hes stuck with me.
GhostUser is offline  
#117 Old 10-21-2009, 10:22 AM
Veggie Regular
 
suchgreatheight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 435
Just because you wear monks robes doesn't mean you're a saint. The Lamas ruled Tibet as a brutal theocratic feudal state where most of the population were slaves before they were overthrown. The Dalai Lama is only held out to be such a wonderful spiritual leader of peace or some such nonsense because its useful to American foreign policy, not because he's actually done anything. The Lamas only became 'peaceful' once they lost their army.
suchgreatheight is offline  
#118 Old 10-21-2009, 10:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
The Dalai Lama is only held out to be such a wonderful spiritual leader of peace or some such nonsense because its useful to American foreign policy, not because he's actually done anything.



How is this useful for American foreign policy? The U.S. hasn't done a damned thing to stand up for the Tibetan people since they were taken over by the Chinese. It's not like we're using the coup as an excuse to go to war with China or anything.
Kellye is offline  
#119 Old 10-21-2009, 10:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post

As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live.





Well, as I already said the FIRST time you said it (LOL) I wasn't saying you should go around TELLING other people how to live, but when you are amongst other vegans, you could at least make it sound like you're not defending the eating of animals by omni-Buddhists.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Her Jazz View Post

I know this wasn't addressed to me...but seeing as I follow a somewhat similar path to thefragile77 I'd like to kind of put my own spin on this.



Buddhism (and similarly Hinduism and other like paths) particularly supports a vegetarian/vegan way of life. (in fact, in a general sense to make any real progress you MUST follow a vegetarian diet)

However, unfortunately, a lot of it's followers do not try to adhere to the path of Ahimsa (non-violence). Especially in modern day, a lot of followers find the idea of a vegetarian diet to be old fashioned and next to impossible. ("It's too hard" is the excuse I've heard from a few)

It could be (IMO) that the Dalai Lama is trying to be trendy or modern by being a non-veg.



This type of spiritual path though is extremely open. Because in a weird way it isn't really a religion. You can follow it 100% and be a true person of the path, but there are many people who don't follow 100% and would still be considered in the same group. The reason for this is that everyone is seen as being at different levels of the same over all path (generally regardless of religion etc.). Therefore judging others is frowned upon as you might actually discourage them from improvement. Instead, teaching by example is encouraged and anything more aggressive is seen as something akin to trying to convert.

So, judging the Dalai Lama's Buddhist-ness (I think I just invented something)is not really possible. It would be more accurate to gauge his actual level of spirituality in general.





Yeh, that IS some spin IMO. And judging his Buddhisimity is possible because I already have - Oh the shame, I'm so bad! He and a whole heap of other Buddhists are disrespecting one of the big precepts and I think it would make a lot more sense if people stopped finding ways to justify him doing that and just admit that's what goes on.



* I'm of the opinion that Buddhism IS a religion despite protests that it isn't by those who practice it. It happens to have a doctrine that is followed, it has deities to worship, there's religious symbolism, prayers etc and temples - that's enough evidence for me that it's a religion - a bit less confining than some maybe, but a religion nonetheless.

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
#120 Old 10-21-2009, 10:44 AM
CKR
Newbie
 
CKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

No one is expecting perfection of him. Just that he at least try not to be a meat-eating, Rolex-wearing, celebrity-snuggling holy man of compassion leading a simple, jet-setting life.



I agree with this. The meat eating (or more so his lame excuse for eating the meat) is only one part of why this guy is a hypocrite.
CKR is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off