You’re going to repeat the part where you claim to be a vegetarian but you actually do eat animals? You calling me stupid doesn’t change the fact that you have deliberately misrepresented yourself. I don’t care how much you ‘understand’ the vegans. You’ve proven in this thread that if you ever did lecture people about the murder of animals for eating, you’d be a hypocrite.
As it stands now, you’re just guilty of misrepresenting yourself.
Finding out that someone is not what they claimed to be is never irrelevant.
Well, it’s good to know that you don’t consider yourself superior to me because I despise mustard and therefore eat ketchup on my hot dogs. I can’t stand saurkraut either, since it makes me throw up.
Just so you know, I didn’t–at least, not in this thread (I have in other threads made the case that under specific conditions it’s not dishonest for me to call myself vegetarian–but those threads were full of qualifiers and linguistic analysis and are wholly irrelevant to what I’ve said in this thread). You ad hominem fails even as a fallacy.
As a diabetic, it makes perfect sense for me to order a diet soda with a cheeseburger. Don’t presume that someone is merely making a faux effort to cut calories by ordering something sugar-free.
You must have a different definition of self-righteousness than I do:
Websters:
Self-righteousness: n. convinced of one’s own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
You have said nothing to convince me that a)preaching vegans are not self-righteousness or b) that their evangalizing is any more appropriate or less annoying than a Christian scolding a gay couple.
My commandment only applies to Chicagoans. The rest of you really can’t be blamed for being brainwashed by the megalithic advertising agencies behind Heinz and Hunts who convinced you that, against all reason, ketchup belongs on hot dogs.
But those growing up in Chicago…there is no excuse except today’s debased “anything goes” society. And it’s gotten worse. Much worse, I fear. 98% of your hot dog joints in Chicago will not put “ketchup” on an “everything-on-it” dog. What kind of sicko would, anyway? But those 2%. They used to not exist. Hot dog vendors would almost sneer at you for having the gumption to ask for ketchup. “You from outta town?” they would say.
Now, by God, I have come across two places (okay, one was in a Home Depot, and it was just over the Chicago border) where I requested an everything dog and got everything plus ketchup on my wurst. What kind of world is this where a Chicagoan can’t go out in the middle of the night to his local stand, safe in the knowledge he won’t be assaulted by perverts and creeps foisting ketchup on his dog? No. I really shouldn’t be forced to now say “Everything on it, no ketchup” because 98% of vendors will think I’m an idiot for merely stating the obvious, akin to saying “everything no chocolate syrup.”
But I do love the sinner and not the sin. I understand some of you are out of town and simply don’t know better. I know some of you are slaves to the advertising industry and will believe anything you see on TV or in print. I know that some of you are just the products of bad parenting. So I don’t completely fault you.
But, “Chicagoans,” really…you should know better. (You’re probably the same “Chicagoans” who like both the Cubs and the Sox, saying you support the city. What kind of batshit insane bullshit is that?)
I can see that you admitted you were bullshitting when referring to yourself as a vegetarian. Then again, you still think there’s nothing wrong with calling yourself a vegetarian when it serves your purposes, whether it’s true or not. You admit you eat animals, yet you call yourself a vegetarian.
You’re being intentionally dishonest every time you do it. I really don’t think it’s me that has the problem.
No, that’s the definition I’m using; I don’t see vegans’ objections to the killing of animals for food to be narrow-minded, any more than my objections to the theft of pets for food is narrow-minded. As for not convincing you, that’s okay.
So it doesn’t matter if your definition of a word is completely inaccurate in that vegetarians are people who don’t eat animals and you obviously are someone who does eat animals, as long as it serves your purposes you’ll claim to be a vegetarian of your own definition?
Fine. But that still makes you a liar, at least as I define liar. And since you get to define words any damn well you see fit, I’ll claim the same right.
The fuck are you talking about? I HAVE NOT CLAIMED IN THIS THREAD TO BE VEGETARIAN. If you’ve got a problem with some other occasion on which I have made a highly qualified claim that under some circumstances I might refer to myself as vegetarian, quote it and let’s discuss that.
I never got the impression anywhere in his thread that he was claiming to be a vegetarian. He just describes his diet as such to people who may be serving his food because it’s easier than running down a list of his exceptions.
C’mon, you don’t know people who describe their diet in such terms? Such as, “I’m pretty much vegetarian, but I eat the occassional fish and chicken” Sure, they’re not dictionary-definition vegetarians, but for them it’s the easiest way to describe their dietary restrictions.
So you’ve claimed, in the past, to be a vegetarian. Now you are in here defending the ‘moral position’ argument of vegetarianism/veganism and you think that your past references to being a vegetarian should be ignored?
Your claims of being a vegetarian, even when you admitted both then and now that you only do so when it serves your self interest, are matters of credibility which do apply to whether or not your defense of moral arguments for vegetarianism/veganism are not self-righteous do apply.
Especially since you’re defending a group you have in the past claimed (truthfully or not) to be a member of.
I almost hate to chime in on this thread now that it seems to have morphed into a “vegan/vegetarian -vs- omnivore” debate. (Nothing wrong with that. Maybe it should go into another thread perhaps?) Personally, I sometimes wish I had the resolve to go veggie, but the smell and taste of a finely done cut of meat keeps pulling me back in. That’s the way the meatball rolls, I guess.
Anyway, I guess I’m one of those heathens that likes ketchup on a hot dog. I don’t know why, but I prefer hot dogs to be dressed with equal parts ketchup and mustard (French’s original or Plochman’s), a smattering of raw yellow onion, and topped off with a bit of sauerkraut. I think I should get brownie points for preferring Hebrew National and Nathan’s hot dogs over the usual Oscar Meyer and Ballpark crap that they sell around here.
I used to be a bit of a beer snob, but I’ve relaxed to the point where I’ll drink just about anything if it isn’t skunked and if it has a decent flavor. I’m not a big Budweiser fan, though.
The same thing with tea. I prefer to drink my Adagio loose leaf teas and Twinings Earl Grey, but I can’t deny enjoying a cold glass of ice cold Lipton or Lusianne with a lemon wedge on a hot day.
I will admit to being kind of a sugar snob. I don’t use much sugar, but when I do I prefer turbinado sugar. That hint of molasses flavor really does it for me.
In Kitchen Confidential, Anthony Bourdain advises you never to order a steak well-done in a nice restaurant, since the chef and cooks will just use the worst cut they have. His reasoning was something along the lines of “if they’re not going to taste the beef flavor anyway, why waste a good cut on them?”. I have to say I agree, but if you’ve managed to find people who can cook a steak well-done without turning it into shoeleather, I guess that’s OK. Personally, I like 'em rare. There are places around here (not steakhouses) that refuse to cook them any rarer than medium rare. In that case, I just say “as rare as you can give it to me”. Works pretty well, usually.
Oh, and caviar and foie gras are the food of the gods. Period.
Oh, and you can have the “little crispy bits” and have the inside rare, if the cut is thick enough. It’s called “black and blue” (the “black” I understand, but I don’t get the “blue” part), and it’s yummy. It’s how I fix them for myself. If you don’t like the redness inside, it wouldn’t be good for you, though.
I know. I think of this as Lucying the football, when I know that someone is a cretin but I still keep responding to them; after a certain number of responses, the fault is really more with me than with them. My apologies, and I’ll back out. I didn’t mean to hijack this thread; I thought my correction of an error in a post way back when was blatantly obvious, and that the poster would acknowledge it, slightly refine their point, and move on.
