Animals Hunting In Front Of Your Eyes

[Balkaar]

Speaking of compassion for prey animals, what of compassion for the predators?

If one prevents a lioness from from goring a zebra, then they may well have saved the zebra, but what of the lioness and her emaciated cubs whom they've now condemned to starvation?

Humans can subsist on vegetables. Carnivorous animals would die if they tried to. Guru Gobind Singh Ji kept a Baaj and probably also dogs. What exactly do you think they ate, cabbages?

The predator-prey cycle is part of nature. Satguru, in his infinite wisdom, has made it so. It is he who commands the lion to savage the gazelle, the animal knows nothing else other than what Maharaj has created it for - to hunt.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Speaking of compassion for prey animals, what of compassion for the predators?

If one prevents a lioness from from goring a zebra, then they may well have saved the zebra, but what of the lioness and her emaciated cubs whom they've now condemned to starvation?

Humans can subsist on vegetables. Carnivorous animals would die if they tried to. Guru Gobind Singh Ji kept a Baaj and probably also dogs. What exactly do you think they ate, cabbages?

The predator-prey cycle is part of nature. Satguru, in his infinite wisdom, has made it so. It is he who commands the lion to savage the gazelle, the animal knows nothing else other than what Maharaj has created it for - to hunt.

What about compassion for rapists and pedophiles can also be a similar argument. There are lions that don't eat meat: today we call them Singhs, which means lion. If GurSikhs can live without it so can they.

[Balkaar]

What about compassion for rapists and pedophiles can also be a similar argument.

What a very weird comparison. The lion eats meat because it must in order to survive, it has no conception of the morality (or immorality, as the case may be) of what it is doing when it is hunting. The paedophile however is not animated by pure instinct in the same way an animal is. The paedophile calculates everything it does, and it is fully aware of how immoral its depravities are, but it goes ahead with them.

And while that flowery comparison between human lions (singhs) and actual lions may work in the realm of metaphor, it would appear absolutely ludicrous to any biologist or zoologist. Just try feeding a lion a diet composed exclusively of vegetables, I dare you - you'll notice that the animal will wither away and die in excruciating pain. Just like a cow would if you fed it only meat. Lions cannot digest vegetable matter. Such things are not meant to be changed. Comparisons between humans, who are conscious of their place in the universe, have a grasp of morality, and are therefore able to make moral choices, against animals who lack all of these qualities, are farcical.

[Balkaar]

You can say similarly the same thing for the Muslimaans who do paap in the name of their religion.

It is those Muslimaan's instict somewhat to do the paaps that they did is it wrong to get rid of them even if their kids starve?? Their kids probably have the same mentality since the parent did those deeds in the name of their religion.. so I hope you got your answer.

How can you say for sure that our Sri Guru ji's baaj ate meat?? Nobody really knows for sure, besides the animals LIBERATED by our Sri Guru jis were given mukhti, unlike the modern killers who kill just because. What's wrong with feeding a carnivore animal the remains of a corpse that has been given kalyan?

The ritualized slaughter of an animal is not instinctual. Ritual is a uniquely human quality which arises out of our capacity for abstract thought, which is the very opposite of instinct. Swallowing is instinctual. As is having sex, or breathing, knowledge of such things is hard-wired into us by Satguru. We are not born with an innate instinct to ritually slaughter the animals we kill. It is just something Muslims and Jews append onto their killing of the animal because they believe it pleases Allah. Moreover, it is not necessary. The animal can still be killed and eaten without having to go through the laborious process of Halal.

Can you say for certain that the Baaj didn't eat meat? Neither of us can be certain of anything in this regard, but my argument here is distinguished from yours in that mine has the evidence of biology on its side. Predatory birds cannot eat vegetables. They would die if they attempted to subsist on carrots.

[Questioner]

Speaking of compassion for prey animals, what of compassion for the predators?

If one prevents a lioness from from goring a zebra, then they may well have saved the zebra, but what of the lioness and her emaciated cubs whom they've now condemned to starvation?

Humans can subsist on vegetables. Carnivorous animals would die if they tried to. Guru Gobind Singh Ji kept a Baaj and probably also dogs. What exactly do you think they ate, cabbages?

The predator-prey cycle is part of nature. Satguru, in his infinite wisdom, has made it so. It is he who commands the lion to savage the gazelle, the animal knows nothing else other than what Maharaj has created it for - to hunt.

The OP tagged the post with "birds" and "cats", in which case I'd assume that the latter belong to owners which which feed it and would therefore not feel that it needs to feast on birds to survive.

It's definitely a more complicated issue with animals in the wild.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

The ritualized slaughter of an animal is not instinctual. Ritual is a uniquely human quality which arises out of our capacity for abstract thought, which is the very opposite of instinct. Swallowing is instinctual. As is having sex, or breathing, knowledge of such things is hard-wired into us by Satguru. We are not born with an innate instinct to ritually slaughter the animals we kill. It is just something Muslims and Jews append onto their killing of the animal because they believe it pleases Allah. Moreover, it is not necessary. The animal can still be killed and eaten without having to go through the laborious process of Halal.

Can you say for certain that the Baaj didn't eat meat? Neither of us can be certain of anything in this regard, but my argument here is distinguished from yours in that mine has the evidence of biology on its side. Predatory birds cannot eat vegetables. They would die if they attempted to subsist on carrots.

You don't understand if that's how you've been raised your entire life it'll most likely be instinct, I assume you believe in evolution, and according to evolution species adapt as things have to change and then they pass on their new genes. If humans evolved to eat meat in extreme circumstances, lions can evolve to become omnivores as well.

[Balkaar]

You don't understand if that's how you've been raised your entire life it'll most likely be instinct, I assume you believe in evolution, and according to evolution species adapt as things have to change and then they pass on their new genes. If humans evolved to eat meat in extreme circumstances, lions can evolve to become omnivores as well.

Humans didn't evolve to eat meat in extreme circumstances, they have always eaten meat. You're distorting natural history to fit your own agenda. Our earliest ancestors were hunter gatherers, meat constituted the bulk of their diets. This state of affairs persisted right up until the advent of agriculture. As for lions evolving into omnivores, such a process would take millions upon millions of years. Evolution by natural selection is an extremely gradual process. The likelihood of a lion being born with a mutation that allows it to digest grass or vegetable matter (quite unlike any other member of its species) is so remotely small that it barely merits thinking about.

If you do something because its what you've been raised to do your entire life, that isn't instinct either. That's called conditioning / education. Religious practices such as Halal slaughter cannot conceivably be instinctual, because instinct is innate, genetic, and irrespective of upbringing.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Humans didn't evolve to eat meat in extreme circumstances, they have always eaten meat. You're distorting natural history to fit your own agenda. Our earliest ancestors were hunter gatherers, meat constituted the bulk of their diets. This state of affairs persisted right up until the advent of agriculture. As for lions evolving into omnivores, such a process would take millions upon millions of years. Evolution by natural selection is an extremely gradual process. The likelihood of a lion being born with a mutation that allows it to digest grass or vegetable matter (quite unlike any other member of its species) is so remotely small that it barely merits thinking about.

If you do something because its what you've been raised to do your entire life, that isn't instinct either. That's called conditioning / education. Religious practices such as Halal slaughter cannot conceivably be instinctual, because instinct is innate, genetic, and irrespective of upbringing.

Humans didn't always eat meat, you can tell that through how most vegetarians when they eat meat start having digestion problems. Plus our oldest ancestors were archae bacteria, which doesn't eat anything. The goal is just like Preet said, Sikhs come with daya.

[Balkaar]

If everything happens because of instincts, can't you say that Islam and Judaism was born from instinct?? lol I am just saying not everything is instinct..!

So am I? I've devoted quite a lot of words to the argument that Halal butchery isn't instinctual, but the by-product of religion which arises from higher consciousness and abstract thought, i.e. the total opposite of instinct.

Oh come on, why are you talking science on this page?? Do you know science would also disapprove how the 5 pyar sahibs got jhatka'd and then their head was put back on??

I don't believe that either, I think its a myth invented by the ultra-vegan lobby in Sikhi. Guru Sahib performed jhatka on a chatanga, a goat. That was where the blood on the sword came from.

[Balkaar]

Humans didn't always eat meat, you can tell that through how most vegetarians when they eat meat start having digestion problems. Plus our oldest ancestors were archae bacteria, which doesn't eat anything. The goal is just like Preet said, Sikhs come with daya.

That's simply not true. It would have been literally impossible for neolithic man to subsist on just vegetables before the invention of agriculture.

If you've ever stayed in the woods for any significant length of time, and you haven't brought any food from home (and had to forage as your ancient humans did), you'd have discovered that it is simply not possible to survive on vegetable matter alone. Edible and nutritious plants are extremely uncommon. Most of the mushrooms and berries you'll find would poison or kill you if you attempted to eat them. You will find yourself having to eat mammals and fish to stay alive, as well as things like woodlice when you are desperately hungry.

So just what exactly do you think the people of the stone age ate? The only food source plentiful enough, large enough and safe enough to sustain prehistoric communities and families would have been meat. A large deer could feed a family for weeks.

Sikhs are enjoined to Daya, but i believe I pointed out that your compassion for a prey animal may cause the predator and their offspring suffering of their own. What of compassion for them? I'm sorry to have to say that it is impossible to demonstrate compassion for both parties. Mother Nature is the one arena in which we cannot, reasonably, take a side, and I don't believe that we should try to.