Firstly, it makes her not a vegetarian, since she eats seafood. She sounds like a pain in the ass - a deluded pain in the ass. A non-vegetarian pain in the ass.
Oh, and someone (as long as they are not smug or preachy about meat, and animal rights) can wear leather and be a vegetarian. At least they can adhere to the vegetarian diet. Adhering to the vegetarian diet doesn’t mean they can’t wear animal skins, or fur - just means they don’t eat animal flesh. (However, if they were to get preachy and sanctimonious about the little animals, while they wore their fur and skin, yeah, that would make them a hypocrite.)
Oh, and to all those people who have been tempted to “goad” a vegetarian by waving a big bloody steak in front of their nose - hun - it’s been done. And done. And done. And done. And done. And done again. If I had a penny for every time some genius thought they’d be cute and wave some piece of meat in my face… My response is usually “Oh my gosh. I will swoon now. I had no idea that people eat meat. I have never seen real meat before. I have never been around people who eat meat before. I am so upset. Oh. My.”
Wow, that looks just like what I said in both of my prior posts. Oh goody. I feel so justified at last.
Maybe I should just go back and liberally sprinkle my first post with lots of “”"""" around all of the comments I’ve heard time and time again from her so I don’t get “corrected” over someone else’s personal “ideals.” Right.
I’m sorry whatever issues you have with non-vegetarians have made you so defensive. Or offensive. Or whatever it is. Maybe all of your posts sound condescending and slightly sanctimonious, as though you know all and what other people know doesn’t count.
Since the OP is about vegetarians, and since you brought up someone who wasn’t one, yeah, I thought I’d clarify that. I mean, if you knew that you were talking about someone who just thought they were vegetarian, instead of actually being one, then that is one thing. (I guess I would have understood that if you had said, “This friend of mine is a ‘psuedo’ vegetarian” or “This friend of mine is a ‘wannabe’ vegetarian”.) So, sorry, if I didn’t understand that’s what you meant. I just don’t like non-vegetarians being lumped in with vegetarians. Color me picky.
As for the rest of it…sorry if I sounded condescending. Sorry if I’ve been a vegetarian for a long time, and have heard to “plants have feelings too” line like a million times. Sorry that I’ve had people wave meat in front of me like a million times. Maybe that gives me a rather weary and sarcastic attitude about those things. What can I say. Sorry that I actually offered some information about vegetarians.
Suppose, as I think entirely likely in the relatively near future, we can grow meat in a vat. That is to say, produce meat that was never sentient. Would it still be meat? Would a protein mass derived from pig, but grown independent of any actual pig, be kosher?
Oh, and chickens are vegetables. They just happen to be mean, stupid, dirty and vicious vegetables.
There’s nothing hypocritical about refusing to eat meat but wearing leather and eating seafood. It doesn’t make you a vegetarian, but if your principle is “I won’t eat anything that’s cute” rather than “I won’t contribute to the death of anything that can feel pain”, that’s fine. It doesn’t make you a hypocrite to follow some principle that isn’t sanctioned by the Central Committee of the Vegetarian Establishment. But as I said, it doesn’t make you a vegetarian.
No. There is more to kashrut than what animal it is. To be properly kosher, an animal must be butchered in a particular way. CKDextHavn knows more about this than me, you can ask him about it.
By the way, I am a vegetarian, because I dislike the idea of eating animals. I would never tell anyone else that they’re wrong or disgusting because they do. Similarly, I find it offensive when people tell me I should eat meat. (Which rarely happens, but this thread almost seems to insinuate that…) I own a few leather products, which I bought before I became a vegetarian. As I can’t afford to buy a bunch of new stuff, I haven’t replaced them. When they wear out, I will buy non-leather goods. I live in the world’s most liberal, hippie-dippie town (stat: 14% of the population is registered Republican, and I’m surprised it’s that high) where a goodly number of people are vegetarian or vegan and I’ve never heard anyone moralize at meat-eaters.
Ok, these may sound like I’m trolling, but they’re serious questions.
What about eating or wearing the skin of road kill.
If we didn’t eat animals, wouldn’t another animal eat them?
What about wearing wool?
BTW, I agree this country eats too much meat, and that more feeding lower on the food chain, would help not only health but food supply. But I dont see the need to go all the way in the other direction. And what would we do with all the cows? Let the wolves and wild dogs have em? Put them to sleep? We would have to kill them some how, or they would eat all our vegetables and grains!
Um… yeah, they kinda do, but what the heck. Trolls need to eat too.
What about it? Knock yourself out, Gomer. You’re free to eat or wear whatever the hell you want. I feel comfortable in saying that nearly all vegetarians will not eat roadkill, however. Nor will the vast majority of the meat-eating population.
Addressing the less insipid subtext of this question, however, I can’t think of any vegetarians who differentiate how the animal is killed in deciding whether or not to eat it. Whether it was killed intentionally, accidentally, or by natural causes is irrelevant.
In some circumstances, yes. What of it? Assuming you’re making this point as an argument in favor of people eating meat, I merely observe that animals eat all kinds of things I wouldn’t. Moreover, many animals that kill other animals are carnivores, and don’t eat anything but meat. Their dietary practices are no more relevant to me than mine are to them.
What about wearing wool?
What about it. Some vegetarians do, some don’t. Vegans wouldn’t. Some people believe that sheep are harmed by the process of shearing. Therefore, they elect not to wear it. Those people who do not believe that wear wool. Shearing the wool off a sheep and eating its flesh are different matters entirely.
No one is going to outlaw the eating of meat overnight. If anything, vegetarianism would catch on over a period of time, and meat producers would decrease their production as demand for meat decreased. They simply will breed fewer cows.
Knock yourself out, Gomer. You’re free to eat or wear whatever the hell you
want.
Well “Gouaaoolly” Thanks Sarge! But I think I’ll pass on the road kill. Allthough you’ve peppered it with enough condescension to probably kill any of that “too gamey” taste. (BTW my favorite condescentions are ketchup and mustard, that jalepeno stuff you use is too hot and sofistikated for us
Gomers)
Addressing the less insipid subtext of this question, however,…
Thank you!..I’ll try to be more sipid next time
…I can’t think of any vegetarians who differentiate how the animal is
killed in deciding whether or not to eat it. Whether it was killed
intentionally, accidentally, or by natural causes is irrelevant.
So its not a man to animal cruelty issue then, its just that we were not
designed or meant to eat meat?
Moreover, many animals that kill other animals are carnivores, and don’t eat
anything but meat. Their dietary practices are no more relevant to me than
mine are to them.
Well, possibly a subject for another great debate, but other animals
eating habits do relate to you very heavily, as does yours to them! Probably
more important than any other man/animal relationship!
Shearing the wool off a sheep and eating its flesh are different matters
entirely.
Yes, but do feel its different because of level of cruelty, health, because
we dont “ingest” the wool???
**No one is going to outlaw the eating of meat overnight.[b/]
Umm…pardon my Gomerish question…Do you think it would/should/could be
outlawed eventually? (I’m not assuming thats what you meant, I’m asking)
By the way, thanks for those “meaty” answers! Just trying to cut away any
fat!
Uh-Oh, you folks mean by eating a big juicy steak Im NOT a vegetarian? Aren’t cows dairy products?
But seriously, what I hate to hear is the old “Vegetarianism is healthier”. Than what?? Than eating a diet consisting of dbl cheeseburgers, fries & shakes? Ifso, then yes, it is healthier. But, if you mean that is is healthier than eating a well balanced diet that includes reasonable servings (3-4oz) of meat, plus lots of grains, fruit, & veggies? Then, no, you are “dead” wrong!
I have a friend who has a serious cholesterol problem, and eats lots of grains, veggies, and only a little bit of fish, cooked to be very low fat. Does he have a healthier diet than me, and many other veggies? Sure. Does he have a better diet than a veggie who lives off of Kool Whip and Vodka? Well, sure! Most carnivores do. Duh!
But, if a vegetarian eats lots of veggies and grains and has no meat, they often eat better than the average carnivore who eats at McDonald’s now and then, and otherwise has the “average” American diet. From my observance, the “average” American diet consists of far more meat, and far less veggies and grains than what the “food pyramid” recommends. So, yeah, in many cases, a vegetarian eats better than the “average” carnivore. But there are certainly no absolutes on either side of this issue.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here. “Vegetarians” don’t eat meat. Period. If a person eats roadkill, he or she is not a vegetarian. There is also a strong possibility that he or she is from West Virginia. (rimshot!) A decision to go vegetarian can be based on any number of considerations, including possibly a desire to avoid man-to-animal cruelty.
Now, there are a lot of people I’ve met who call themselves “vegetarians,” but who actually eat meat or fish under certain circumstances. These people-- who, because they eat meat, are not vegetarians-- all have various personal criteria that they apply in deciding what kinds of meat they will eat. I know some people who are willing to eat meat from animals that were free-roaming until they were killed quickly and relatively painlessly, and thus, they eat free-range chicken and venison. It is certainly possible that some people could feel that deliberately killing the animal would be cruel, but would eat roadkill or an animal that died of natural causes. I don’t know of anybody who makes that particular distinction, which seems to be somewhat impractical from a menu planning standpoint, but the reasons people eat or don’t eat things are as numerous and individual as the people themselves.
I’m talking about a more basic level. The fact that a tiger eats only meat is no more persuasive an argument for me to eat meat than is the fact that an elephant only eats plants is a persuasive argument that I should only eat plants. The particular biolgical or instinctual reasons why they eat what they eat has no bearing on what I decide to eat.
To me it’s different because I don’t feel that shearing a sheep causes the sheep to suffer any significant harm. I once posed the question here about how feathers for down pillows and blankets were gathered-- whether they were gathered up after ducks molted or whether the feathers were plucked from otherwise unwilling donors.
To me, whether an animal is harmed in the process of collecting a material is a major factor in my decision to use it. Now, to some extent, I have to make that inquiry conceptually, since I have no way of knowing whether the factory that makes the wool suit I have on gets its fabric from a small, down-home “Babe”-kinda farmer or a big, nasty, sheep-in-the-stocks kind of place. For me, I’m satisfied that the process itself is not necessarily harmful, and that’s enough. Other people are more willing to be more inquisitive into the source of the goods they buy. A great many people are less willing to do so. Again, it is all a matter of individual preference.
I don’t imagine that it will (or should) ever be outlawed, barring some global epidemic of plague that makes it unsafe to eat. But I do anticipate that over the next several decades, health issues, environmental concerns, and increasing unit cost will lead to a significant reduction of the amount of meat the average person eats. It is conceivable to me that, say, 50 years from now, an increasing population will require food production to make more efficient use of land and resources. This will make it more and more difficult to rely on meat as a major part of the diet, since meat generally requires more land and resources per nutritional unit than plant-based foods do. (I can find statistics to back this up, if requested.) Over time, meat will become much more of a luxury food item, and will be eaten sparingly, if at all, by the typical person.
I’ll play naïve here. What is the problem with eating eggs? Eggs bought in the supermarket aren’t fertilized so there’s no chance of a sentient animal being deprived of its life.
An unfertilized (say) chicken egg is the basic avian equivalent of a discarded tampon for a human female. Not an appetizing thought, but it causes about as much harm to the chicken as a woman having her period.
Nutritionally, egg-white is mostly pure protein (not including water), and the yolk is almost pure lipid, a good source of energy if required. So, in my opinion, eggs aren’t nutritionally lacking.
So what’s the big deal for vegans? They can’t say animal products in the diet aren’t necessarily less healthy. I’m going to provide my body with more of its needed substrates with an egg than a stalk of celery.
So, what’s the problem? The treatment of animals in the production of food? Sure, it’s harsh. But how harsh is it for antelope to be killed by a lion? Humans are omnivores, the same as the bear and many other animals that share this planet. I just saw some pigeons the other day picking a discarded chicken bone clean.
If you find the mass production of animals for food wrong, think about the fact that civilizations develop with agriculture. Agriculture that includes animals.
If you make the argument that humans aren’t omnivores, I would question your understanding of the anatomy and physiology of human digestion. Whether humans NEED to eat meat is the philosophical debate.
I’m willing to bet humans are the only species that debates it’s diet.
My vegan friends does not consume animal products because she believes that any use of animal products, regardless of how collected, is exploitation and abuse. I find her position a little extreme (I’m ovo-lacto) but I completely undertand her point of view. Factory-farmed animals are raised in horrific conditions. They are confined and in many cases mutilated. I don’t need eggs that badly.
But they aren’t necessary for human survival.
For some it’s a question of health. For others a question of ethics. For many it’s a combination of factors.
Not the same thing. Lions really don’t have much choice in what they eat. Humans have the capacity for making ethical and nutritional choices. Perfect health can be maintained without the consumption of meat or other animal products.
Culturally, perhaps. I have read information (long ago and I don’t have it any longer) indicating that humans don’t produce a good combination of enzymes to digest animal flesh.
There’s a quantifiable difference between a small agrarian village raising a small herd of animals and the mass production of animals for industrial societies. Not to mention the havoc that factory farming wreaks on the environment.
Since humans are currently the only known species which engages in philosophical debate, it’s a safe bet.
I think a problem here is that people are getting hung up on the technical meanings of “vegetarian” and “vegan.”
Lots of people make ethical choices, sometimes about what they eat, wear etc. Abirkenstock wearing non-meat eater is making a personal choice to reduce, but not eliminate, the animal prducts she uses. So is a dairy eating or fish eating vegetarian.
As long as they don’t ram their choices down my throat, so to speak, 's ok with me.
As far as vegans etc. being hypocrits, I’m sure most of them are, because most everybody, me included has failed to practice what they preach many times.
