The status of vegetarians

[Broomstick]

Unfortunately, where you live really does have something to do with it. I had a professor in undergrad who was a vegetarian who was passing through the states. I can't remember which state it was, but it was a (surprise) southern state. She stopped at a pizza restaurant and ordered a cheese pizza. Standard, yeah? The people there actually kept asking why she didn't want anything else on the pizza, till she finally replied that she didn't eat meat. They then asked "What's wrong with you?". That was about 5 years ago.

It's not just the "what's wrong with you you don't eat meat" meme - it's also incomprehension that you'd pass on any food. I never acquired a taste for most meat+cheese combinations and I usually find the texture of melted cheese nauseating. Therefore, I do not eat cheeseburgers. I have, on more than one occasion, encountered fast food drones are in disbelief that, first of all, there exist people who don't put cheese on burgers, and second would turn down free food. Actually got in an argument once with one of these, "But the cheese is FREE! We don't charge for the cheese!" Look, you dipshit, I don't care about cost or no-cost, I wouldn't eat melted cheese on a burger if you paid me to do it.

Eating down south can be a real trial. So can eating in urban areas where the fast foodies haven't traveled more than three blocks from the project they were born in.

[Spin Echo]

Yeah. A big problem is when aspiring vegans just sort of waddle in and do it without any research. As you said earlier, it's best not to go into it cold turkey (which is basically how I did it, though I wouldn't do so again), but I eventually did more homework on it.

One of the latest diet book crazes is "Skinny Bitch", which basically advocates a vegan diet. While getting people to eat more veggies is normally commendable, the book is reprehensible. Ignoring the fact the writing is completely crass, they tell the readers they can get all the nutrition they need from non-vegetable sources but fail to go into the details of planning healthy, complete vegan meals. Instead, they appear to be shilling for vegan food companies that sell soy cheese and fake chicken nuggets. They're going to produce a following of junk food vegans I think.

[Coyote]

Another thing to consider is to limit yourself to types of meat (and cutting down on volume of that as well). For example, cut out beef and pig but keep poultry and fish, and further limit your portions and the living conditions supported by your choices (ie, free-range chicken on one hand for poultry, but hatchery fish as opposed to depleting wild fish populations).

Cutting out beef and pig is important (IMO) because those two animals are large, resource-consuming and pollutant-spewing beasts, requiring lots of land and agricultural fodder. Chickens OTOH are very low-impact and also have the advantage of producing eggs as well before being consumed (sort of a two-for-one deal).

Humans are omnivores-- that means meat as well as plants-- and to deny that is 'un-natural'.

[Broomstick]

Chickens OTOH are very low-impact and also have the advantage of producing eggs as well before being consumed (sort of a two-for-one deal)

Except that with modern farms the chickens that produce eggs don't wind up as roasters on your dinner table. More often, they wind up in soup or in pet food. The chicken raised as meat don't live long enough to produce eggs. In fact, different varieties are used for the two different purposes.

If you want to get eggs then eat the hens when they stop producing you pretty much have to raise your own.

[CaptJodan]

Humans are omnivores-- that means meat as well as plants-- and to deny that is 'un-natural'.

Oh yes, let's brandy about the oh-so-well-defined concept of "nature".

What does this statement even mean? Humans require specific dietary requirements to live a healthy life. If someone can meet all their dietary requirements with our without meat, then they've met nature's demands for healthy survival. Since someone can meet those requirements (through actual food, no less, not just a pill), without eating meat, then not eating meat becomes a choice.

[Coyote]

If someone can meet all their dietary requirements with our without meat, then they've met nature's demands for healthy survival. Since someone can meet those requirements (through actual food, no less, not just a pill), without eating meat, then not eating meat becomes a choice.

And so, too, does eating meat. A choice, and one that does not necessarily have to carry baggage with it... unless one chooses to.

There are reasons to eat meat; there are reason not to. Rational choices are one thing, but I don't believe that lketting a guy feel "shamed" into the decision is rational. I love the stuff and before we had dietary supplements and the ability to import protein-rich foods from all across the world, meat made up a natural part of the human diet for a long time. Now the luxury of choice is available.

[Mayabird]

but hatchery fish as opposed to depleting wild fish populations).

Well, with fish you have to be a bit more careful than just that. A lot of fish farm operations are built by destroying wild habitat (for instance Thailand has lost half its mangrove forests to shrimp farming) or become breeding grounds for diseases and parasites that end up threatening wild fish stocks (with salmon farming being a particularly bad one). Well managed wild stocks, such as Alaskan salmon are sometimes a better choice.

And while I'm linking to the last one, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch is a good quick guide to what I've been talking about.

[CaptJodan]

And so, too, does eating meat. A choice, and one that does not necessarily have to carry baggage with it... unless one chooses to.

No argument here.

There are reasons to eat meat; there are reason not to. Rational choices are one thing, but I don't believe that lketting a guy feel "shamed" into the decision is rational.

Who's shaming him? True, he's feels shame himself, but like you said "unless one chooses to". I think most of the responses here have been fairly rational. Take it slow, don't go cold turkey, realize there are complications if you stay vegetarian a long time, and you can still be healthy and minimize suffering of the animals by limiting your intake and being choosy where you get your intake from.

I love the stuff and before we had dietary supplements and the ability to import protein-rich foods from all across the world, meat made up a natural part of the human diet for a long time. Now the luxury of choice is available.

My issue is the "it's unnatural" argument. For some cultures, vegetarianism is what they've known all their lives, and has been practiced for thousands of years. And I don't find anything unnatural about that behavior beyond the fact that it's religiously motivated.

[Broomstick]

For madd0ct0r - you know, the guy who started this thread:

When I posted earlier I was searching my brain for a particular term to describe diet and couldn't remember it, but now I have: Flexitarian. Basically, it's someone who's diet is mostly vegetarian, but who is willing to make exceptions for various reasons.

It's not a bad option, and probably more common than realized. Very few people remain 100% vegetarian for life.

[Omeganian]

There is an opinion in Judaism (maybe not the most common), that one of the factors leading to the Great Flood was that the people were vegetarians. Thus, they had trouble differentiating a human from an animal in more ways than one. After drowning the failed experiment, God allowed people to eat meat.

[FSTargetDrone]

There is an opinion in Judaism (maybe not the most common), that one of the factors leading to the Great Flood was that the people were vegetarians. Thus, they had trouble differentiating a human from an animal in more ways than one. After drowning the failed experiment, God allowed people to eat meat.

That's... rather bizarre.

[Broomstick]

Yeah. Not sure what's implied there... the Flood was caused by bestiality? Didn't work, then, farmer still fuck sheep on occasion. And there was that one guy back in the 1980's who was caught fucking the cows at the Lincoln Park Zoo not once but twice.

Anyhow - that, in my opinion, ranks with the theory that there was no rainfall ever before the Flood. Or any of the other nutty ideas about the Flood.