Selfsufficientish.com

Well MKG wow!

If you take your argument to the extreme, then in fact it has been proven that nearly 96% of all deaths occur to people over 70, so it would be more effective to kill old people? Would save loads of money for the NHS and Welfare spending would be slashed in an instant. We would all be far richer and all be able to afford more motorbikes, and throw away more food for the rats!

Nature is a wonderfull thing, and I am sure all things have a place.

Recent report in the papers have said non native species cost £1.8 billion a year of damage to the economy, the biggest culprit being the Rabbit!

If you have a problem with Rats you have a problem with proofing, cleanliness or lack of predators, get out your cement, your cleaning gloves, and your cat and you have no problem!

boboff wrote:If you have a problem with Rats you have a problem with proofing, cleanliness or lack of predators, get out your cement, your cleaning gloves, and your cat and you have no problem!

Well put and could easily be adapted for any 'nuisance'.

Our cat's brilliant with rats,.......but bloody useless with motorcyclists.

Give the cat a broom handle and you'll be sorted!

That made me chuckle!

OJ, how do you know your cat's useless with motorcyclists? It may be catching them but can't fit them in through the catflap. If you check behind your dustbin you might find a neat pile of headless motorcyclists there.

I' ve just looked..........................OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oldjerry wrote:I' ve just looked..........................OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhhhh .. begun it has, young Skywalker

Mike

oldjerry wrote:All living things fear being beaten with clubs.
All living things fear being put to death.
Putting oneself in the place of the other,
Let no one kill nor cause another to kill.

Dhammapada 129

I'd be interested to see the rat exclusion clause.

I don't rate the total annihilation stuff either,it's much more about the human psyche than any actual threat, but isn't last bit anthropomorphism at it's worst?...no offence,shoot me down if I've got the wrong end of it.[/quote]




Yes, OJ, you're right. But Buddhism is anthropomorphic to the core given the possibilities of reincarnation cycles. But it was a serious question - I know of no rat exclusion clause but that doesn't mean there isn't one, and I was genuinely interested to hear where Big Al got that from.

Mike

Yeah,I see that,I know jack about Buddhism,and I feel thats my loss.All the Buddhists (and Quakers) I,ve come across have been well worth knowing.

They do make exceedingly good Porridge.....

I've just seen the request for info. I'll look up the info and report back but there are exceptions to all ideals. Take for instace the chinese invasion of Tibet in the late 50's. The CIA provided buddhist monks with wepons to repel the chinese and the dali llama sanctioned the idea which eventually ended up in the exile of the Dali Llama. A second exception is that buddhists are vegetarians as you must not kill animals or allow animals to be killed for you but if a monk only has his alms bowl with him and is begging for food he is duty bound to eat what is placed in his bowl. Therefore if meat is placed in the bowl he has to eat it.

Big Al wrote:A second exception is that buddhists are vegetarians as you must not kill animals or allow animals to be killed for you but if a monk only has his alms bowl with him and is begging for food he is duty bound to eat what is placed in his bowl. Therefore if meat is placed in the bowl he has to eat it.

Yes, this is the case as told to me by a buddhist friend. I think it's a cop-out.

Oh dear - I appear to be becoming the apologist for Buddhists. Ah well ...

Buddhists regard vegetarianism as an ideal, but do not insist upon a non-meat diet ... but only under certain circumstances, the main one being that you, as a Buddhist, have not killed the animal for food. Yes, a Buddhist - and in particular a Buddhist priest - may eat meat if it is offered. But - and it's a big but - only if they are sure that the animal was not killed purely to feed said priest. So it isn't simply a matter of you will eat the offered food - basically, if the priest thinks that the food is what the offerer is eating anyway, he'll eat it. If he thinks that the food (of animal origin) is especially for him, he shouldn't.

Okay - it's a fine point of difference, considering that the same priest also believes that the killed animal really could have been related to him in some past life. But all religions have such fine points. Personally, although not a Buddhist and certainly antipathetic to a lot of the hypocritical crap displayed openly by most religions, I find Buddhism to be one of the least harmful in a bad bunch.

Anyway - I like rats.

Mike

hmmm...... could you be the reincarnation of Willard..??!