Why does my diet aggravate people so?

[Ceaon]

I have been a vegetarian for a good number of years. My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint. For reference, I live in an urban area in the Netherlands, though I have visited other European countries and Canada for extended periods and I noticed similar reactions as the ones described below.

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

On many message boards, it gets even worse. Though on second thought, let's ignore that for now.

If people have questions about my being a vegetarian, I always answer them, but I never start the discussion. Well, okay, I guess I am starting it now.

Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.

I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)
2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asked/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?
3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?

[Razade]

1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)

Isn't it rather presumpative of you to lump everyone who isn't Vegetarian under a single label? Do you like it when people tie you in with agressive Vegan/Vegetarians who actively go out of their way to criticize non-Vegetarian/Vegans? The tenor of this thread makes me think you don't. I don't care what you eat or what you don't eat. Just don't try to tell me what I should or shouldn't eat and I won't say a word.


2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asled/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?

In my experience no one cares what a person's diet is. The fact that you seem to have such a problem with it makes me wonder if we're not getting both sides to this story.


3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?

The first thing I think is I don't because I don't care.


I have been a vegetarian for a good number of years. My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint. For reference, I live in an urban area in the Netherlands

Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.

The picture is starting to become more clear. One might take both those statements as a little sanctimonious. Something tells me there's still more at work here we're not being told but I've honestly no idea.

[AMFV]

I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)


Probably this: Firstly they've likely had some negative experiences meeting other Vegans or Vegetarians in the past and therefore may be reacting to attempt to head you off at the pass as it were, essentially going on the offensive first. Secondly, because, most vegetarians and vegans claim that their diet is for moral reasons, which means that oftentimes when somebody declares that it's something that's seen as a kind of moral judgement on others, so that can make people uncomfortable.



2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asled/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?


I would be honest about your reasons, but I would downplay it. Don't act as though somehow your diet is going to cause you to be a better human being than the person you're talking to, if you do that, you'll be fine! If somebody gets tense, I would try and just defuse the subject. Anything you do as a joke or anything else is probably going to increase rather than decrease tension.



3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?

I don't really care why anybody does anything else with their diet. Usually it means that they're spoiling for a fight though, although that may be unique in my case because I have a lot more direct experience with the whole process of harvesting animals.

[Ceaon]

The picture is starting to become more clear. One might take both those statements as a little sanctimonious. Something tells me there's still more at work here we're not being told but I've honestly no idea.

Why exactly is this sanctimonious? Did I phrase it wrong? I dont really understand.

[AMFV]

Why exactly is this sanctimonious? Did I phrase it wrong? I dont really understand.

Well I think again the problem is this: many people are going to interpret this as you indirectly accusing them of not reducing their ecological footprint. Or accusing them of having a negative impact on the environment because they eat meat. Which may or may not be true (both in the sense that you may not be accusing them and that they may not have a greater impact than you). I would shy away from bringing up your reasons, there's no real reason to do so.

[Ceaon]

Well I think again the problem is this: many people are going to interpret this as you indirectly accusing them of not reducing their ecological footprint. Or accusing them of having a negative impact on the environment because they eat meat. Which may or may not be true (both in the sense that you may not be accusing them and that they may not have a greater impact than you). I would shy away from bringing up your reasons, there's no real reason to do so.

I see. I think being a vegetarian makes me a better person, but I don't think it makes me a better person than anyone else, if you understand what I mean. It is a personal choice, nothing more.

As for bringing up my reasons, I see your point. I bring them up because people often ask about them as their first question and I thought I'd answer it for them preemptively in this thread.

I do wonder why vegetarianism without reason is more acceptable than vegetarianism with a reason (a scientifically backed reason, even). I always thought being open and sharing information is the first step to mutual understanding.

Edit to say: Again, not trying to "convert" anyone. This is just one of the few boards where I can ask this question and expect insightful answers instead of condescending memes about plants having feelings too. I ask, not to insult or imply a moral high ground but because I value your answers.

[Maryring]

Why exactly is this sanctimonious? Did I phrase it wrong? I dont really understand.

It's not. Nothing in your statement implies hypocrisy of any kind. But vegetarianism is generally seen as taking a moral and/or political stand. You even admit to as much yourself. And people generally don't like feeling any shortcomings exposed, which any mention of vegetarianism does. So they get defensive and push you away to stop you from reminding them of their perceived flaws. In this regard, a scientifically backed reason makes people even more defensive since that's even harder to argue against.

[the_david]

The company I work for had some visitors who were all vegetarians because of cultural reasons. To me it was unbelievable how rude my fellow coworkers were to these men. (Or even fellow coworkers who had strange dietary habits.) Now I do realize that you should be very upfront with any dietary wishes. If people are going through the hassle of preparing food for you, tell them in advance and they can adjust before they go shopping.

That doesn't excuse the fact that those people are ***** though.

[Razade]

It's not. Nothing in your statement implies hypocrisy of any kind. But vegetarianism is generally seen as taking a moral and/or political stand. You even admit to as much yourself. And people generally don't like feeling any shortcomings exposed, which any mention of vegetarianism does. So they get defensive and push you away to stop you from reminding them of their perceived flaws. In this regard, a scientifically backed reason makes people even more defensive since that's even harder to argue against.

Considering sanctimony has nothing to do with hypocrisy...

AMFV already said what I would say in reply otherwise.

[Quild]

My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint.
I don't annoy vegetarians, pescetarians, vegans and not even those who eat halal or kosher or no meat or friday, or else. As long as they don't rub it in the face (I don't consider you're doing that with this post).

That being said, even if I respect people choice, I don't understand them. I don't usually rub why in people's face myself, but since you're asking (for vegetarians/vegans at least)

Religious reasons:
I think these are really old and terribly bad reasons to complicate the life of billions of people.

Ecological footprint:
It's really a nice thing to reduce it. I eat fat less meat than before myself. But only less. I'm not trying to avoid it completely.
To go that far becomes again needlessly complicated and somehow hypocritical, willingly or not. Because your ecological footprint is probably terrible on many other aspects of your life. Some people will say that's it's better to be good on one aspect even if you're not on the others than being good on none, but... I think it's just their own limit of what is easy for them and what isn't.
The ecological footprint of digital technology is terrible, but here we are.
Also, beef is the meat with a real problem with it's ecological footprint. Pork is far less a problem and chicken again far less. Overfishing is also problematic.

Ethical reasons:
People don't want animals to be hurt. I'm always surprised by how this concern for animals is far less important for people either on some other parts of the world or right under the nose.
I honestly don't get it at all.

Health:
While I'm totally convinced that too much meat is bad for health, I'm not convinced at all that no meat at all is better.
Some vegans need food supplements... It can't be good.

[A.A.King]

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

If you were to cook for me and I would say "actually, I'm a meat-eater" would you change what you are cooking? Would you make me a little bit of meat to go with the meal, would you cook for my diet?Here you are at someone else his/her place and they are cooking for you and you tell they they have to change their plans because you don't feel like eating certain things. People generally either consider cooking a pain, in which case you've just made this nice gesture worse for your host because all of a sudden the plans to be based around you OR they do actually like cooking and now they can no longer cook what they wanted to cook, they can't show of the recipe they wanted to share because you have to have differently. I think that in that case "Ugh... fine..." is a perfectly acceptable reaction.

Similarly: If I were to go to a vegan/vegetarian restaurant and order a nice juice steak, I don't think that I wouldn't be treated in a particularly nice way. Why would you expect other restaurants to be different? You are now basically ordering of the menu which for most restaurants is only acceptable if you have a dire medical reason (and even then it depends on the restaurant. If you have a nut allergy, don't go to Pete's House of Peanuts). If you go a restaurant and you see there is no vegetarian option, or to be more general: if you don't see anything that you would want to order, then leave the restaurant. If you don't decide to leave but instead go and ask of the restaurant to make you something special, then you really shouldn't complain about the way they react.


I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)
People react stronly for two reasons. There are a lot of judgemental vegans and vegetarians out there who will lecture you about why meat is bad and why you should convert to their cause. You only have to meet some many of them before you start to get a kind of pavlov reaction to the phrase: "Actually, I'm a vegetarian". The other reason is by telling that plans now have to be based around you. Compare and contrast this with the people who are following the modern fad of "gluten-free" (specifically the people who don't have celiac disease but who've heard it is healthier). There is no medical reason yet they are making dining out impossible



3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?
It depends on the context in which the information is given to me. If they tell me for a reason other than we are about to go and order food or because we were actually already discussing vegans or vegetarians than I tend to think pretty badly of their reasons. Usually, my bad thoughts turn out to be right.

[Ceaon]

If you were to cook for me and I would say "actually, I'm a meat-eater" would you change what you are cooking? Would you make me a little bit of meat to go with the meal, would you cook for my diet?

Good post! If you told me up front you want to eat meat each dinner each day, sure, I'd cook some meat for you. My wife is not a vegetarian and I sometimes cook meat for her as well.


Here you are at someone else his/her place and they are cooking for you and you tell they they have to change their plans because you don't feel like eating certain things. People generally either consider cooking a pain, in which case you've just made this nice gesture worse for your host because all of a sudden the plans to be based around you OR they do actually like cooking and now they can no longer cook what they wanted to cook, they can't show of the recipe they wanted to share because you have to have differently. I think that in that case "Ugh... fine..." is a perfectly acceptable reaction.

I understand that, which is why I inform people as soon as it becomes clear who'll do the cooking.


Similarly: If I were to go to a vegan/vegetarian restaurant and order a nice juice steak, I don't think that I wouldn't be treated in a particularly nice way. Why would you expect other restaurants to be different? You are now basically ordering of the menu which for most restaurants is only acceptable if you have a dire medical reason (and even then it depends on the restaurant. If you have a nut allergy, don't go to Pete's House of Peanuts). If you go a restaurant and you see there is no vegetarian option, or to be more general: if you don't see anything that you would want to order, then leave the restaurant. If you don't decide to leave but instead go and ask of the restaurant to make you something special, then you really shouldn't complain about the way they react.


If I pick the restaurant, I make sure there is no need to go off menu. Of course not all menus make it clear if a dish is vegetarian so that can still require me to ask. If, however, my work, clients or others book a restaurant, they sometimes forgot to check. Leaving then is hard for me, for several reasons.


People react stronly for two reasons. There are a lot of judgemental vegans and vegetarians out there who will lecture you about why meat is bad and why you should convert to their cause. You only have to meet some many of them before you start to get a kind of pavlov reaction to the phrase: "Actually, I'm a vegetarian".

Which, to be fair, is textbook discrimination. Treating an individual a certain way because of the perceived characteristics of a group they belong to. But I guess it is natural; as a vegetarian I ofcourse donot have to deal with aggressive vegetarians since I am already in their "camp". So I have no idea how hard that may be.


If they tell me for a reason other than we are about to go and order food or because we were actually already discussing vegans or vegetarians than I tend to think pretty badly of their reasons. Usually, my bad thoughts turn out to be right.

If you do not mind my asking, could you share some of these bad thoughts that turn out to be right? Maybe some of them apply to me.

[Maryring]

Considering sanctimony has nothing to do with hypocrisy...

AMFV already said what I would say in reply otherwise.

Sanctimonious

adjective
1.
making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness

Know the meaning of the words you use.

[A.A.King]

If you do not mind my asking, could you share some of these bad thoughts that turn out to be right? Maybe some of them apply to me.

Okay


Good post! If you told me up front you want to eat meat each dinner each day, sure, I'd cook some meat for you. My wife is not a vegetarian and I sometimes cook meat for her as well.

Well, most vegetarians I know would not extent me the same courtesy they expect from me. They'd demand that I do everything in my power to provide them a proper vegetarian meal (to just leave the meat of their portion is often not considered enough) but then they are offended if I even slightly suggest they provide me with meat.

The other two things I've noticed is that they are often sanctimonious and preachy. It is one thing to leave out meat because you feel sorry for the animals or because you think that too many animals are bad for the environment, it is quite another to act like you are single-handedly saving the word. Similarly, if you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat but then don't go round to others and tell them that they shouldn't eat meat either. (The latter of course goes both ways, my fellow meat eaters shouldn't generally try to convert vegetarians back to eating meat. If either side started it though you are no longer allowed to get offended if the other person does it back at you).

But yeah, you already said you don't tend to start talks on vegetarians and you even offered to cook me a piece meat (and yes, I do eat at least one piece of meat every day. The V from AVG is very important to me) so already you're doing quite well. Those were my main two reasons though: to a lot of vegetarians (that I know) it's not about restricting one's own diet for person reasons, it's about saving the animals and even the world but more importantly it is about OTHERS knowing you are doing that and trying to get them to join their crusade.

[Ceaon]

... it is quite another to act like you are single-handedly saving the word.

To be honest, if I *could* singlehandedly save the world, I probably would. And I might even tell others. Sorry about that ;)


... to a lot of vegetarians it's not about restricting one's own diet for person reasons, it's about saving the animals and even the world but more importantly it is about OTHERS knowing you are doing that and trying to get them to join their crusade.

I do believe that more people eating less meat would be a good thing. I think it is a net gain for the world. But I can understand that other people will get fed up if I act as if my personal choice makes me better than them.

What bothers me is that even if I try to avoid being preachy or condescending, people can still get offended or defensive. Razades first post is a somewhat telling example; I didn't mean to push any buttons, but I clearly did. Apparently my choice of words was not perfect, but still, my intent was to receive answers and not to insinuate that Razade or anyone else kind enough to answer was in any way less for not agreeing with me.

That is why I created this thread: to get your input for a method to try, or for some form of behavior I can exhibit to decrease the chances of offending people with a personal choice. Because I feel like I have to walk on eggshells when talking about something as simple as consciously not eating some edible things.

[Kalmageddon]

I have been a vegetarian for a good number of years. My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint. For reference, I live in an urban area in the Netherlands, though I have visited other European countries and Canada for extended periods and I noticed similar reactions as the ones described below.

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

On many message boards, it gets even worse. Though on second thought, let's ignore that for now.

If people have questions about my being a vegetarian, I always answer them, but I never start the discussion. Well, okay, I guess I am starting it now.

Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.

I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)
2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asked/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?
3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?

1) As you may notice from the previous answers, the reason is not what you say, but what people think you are saying or even what you are not saying but maybe thinking.
People don't like to think of themselves as less caring than someone else. And they get really, really nervous when they see someone going just a little bit further than they are willing to go. Because that means they don't care all that much after all.

Before I started dating vegan girls I really had no idea how aggressive people get at vegan and vegetarians, even those that really don't do anything other than not eating certain foods. Not preaching, not going around telling others of their mistakes, just saying "no thank you, I don't eat X" when offered food they don't want to eat for a variety of reasons.
In my mind this is really close to the saying "the reaction to feminist articles justify feminism". If there wasn't a problem with eating as much meat as it is considered normal in the western world, why would people get so aggressive about it?

2) You really, really can't do anything about it. Just ignore them and don't give explanations. I'm not even vegan and even I got fed up with all the anti-vegan humor, it's trite and you can smell the insecurity of the people that make up those jokes from a mile away. And that's just from being exposed to the prespective of a few vegan girlfriends I had.

3) Ethical reasons, followed by environmental reasons and then by reasons we can't talk about on this forum. Which mostly holds true from what I have seen.

[A.A.King]

To be honest, if I *could* singlehandedly save the world, I probably would. And I might even tell others. Sorry about that ;)
If you not eating meat would actually save the world people wouldn't complain. Nobody in Superman's world complains about him afterall. I do hope however you notice that he doesn't have a side-kick named "Mr Vegetarian". "One is faster than a speeding bullet and shoots laser eyes the other.. doesn't eat meat. Together they are: Superman and the Vegetarian - Here to save the day". I don't think that show would work to be honest ;)



I do believe that more people eating less meat would be a good thing. I think it is a net gain for the world. But I can understand that other people will get fed up if I act as if my personal choice makes me better than them.

What bothers me is that even if I try to avoid being preachy or condescending, people can still get offended or defensive. Razades first post is a somewhat telling example; I didn't mean to push any buttons, but I clearly did. Apparently my choice of words was not perfect, but still, my intent was to receive answers and not to insinuate that Razade or anyone else kind enough to answer was in any way less for not agreeing with me.

That is why I created this thread: to get your input for a method to try, or for some form of behavior I can exhibit to decrease the chances of offending people with a personal choice. Because I feel like I have to walk on eggshells when talking about something as simple as consciously not eating some edible things.

Sometimes the problem isn't anything you can do or prevent. Let's take a look at some other replies in this threat shall we.


people generally don't like feeling any shortcomings exposed, which any mention of vegetarianism does. So they get defensive and push you away to stop you from reminding them of their perceived flaws.


People don't like to think of themselves as less caring than someone else. And they get really, really nervous when they see someone going just a little bit further than they are willing to go. Because that means they don't care all that much after all.

I'm not even vegan and even I got fed up with all the anti-vegan humor, it's trite and you can smell the insecurity of the people that make up those jokes from a mile away.

The fact is, there are people out there who do believe that vegetarianism is the obvious moral superior choice. Not just for them, for everyone. As such they think badly of other people, they are obviously flawed, not caring enough and insecure. There is no way to say "I'm a vegetarian" that doesn't make a lot of people immediately assume that you are "one of those people" simply because there are an awful lot of "those people" out there. How often does a person who is enjoying a nice meal have to be told "Meat is Murder!!!" before he or she can start assuming the worst about non-meat eaters?

I'm willing to admit that there is a chicken and egg problem to the current status quo, because at this point "vegetarians thinking badly of meat-eaters" and "meat-eaters thinking badly of vegetarians" are reinforcing themselves (I'm sure we're all smart enough that I don't have to add the word 'certain' in front every time I mention a group). The thing still is, the problem remains. People will have had bad experiences with other people from a group and you can only go in with an open mind so many times before you'll find yourself thinking "the statistic just don't work in their favour"

I'll try to illustrate this with a different example of a different diet:
Personally I shouldn't eat gluten. I say 'shouldn't' because the flesh is weak and the pizzas are just too delicious so my convictions do stray. I do however have a bonafide allergy towards gluten which my body reminds of each time I 'forgot' about it. I'm not a celiac (which is the only gluten intollerance people generally know of) because it affects my lungs rather than my intestines. Though this all probably too much information. What's important here is this: As a child I was told I'm allergic to gluten and while I do stray, I generally do my best to avoid it.

The reason that I give a lot of information is because when you tell people you don't eat gluten but you're not a celiac you get a lot of funny reactions. They assume you are one of those people following the current (is it still current?) fad of eating gluten-free (those people who don't really know what 'gluten' actually are). I've grown to accept this reaction. I've come to accept that there is now a large group of people who have taken the concept of "gluten-free" and ruined it. There is just too many of them and their behaviour too obnoxious for others not to 'fear' them and there is no way for me to say the sentence: "While I'm not a celiac, I don't eat gluten" without them getting jumping to some pretty bad conclusions. The other people out there are to blame, the people who created a bad image of what it is like to eat gluten (and trust me, I hate them for it). All I can do is explain. Tell them "I'm allergic, no I won't die if I eat some. It's not like a peanut allergy. Yes, I have had this for a long time, Yes I do know what gluten are, etc".

Sometimes a large group earns a bad image for the entire group, and the only thing you can do is give more information when talking to others about your position.
"Personally, I don't eat meat because I believe that it helps lower my ecological foot print but I don't care about what you guys do or eat. All I really care about is that, if we go to a restaurant together, we go to a place where I can order something outside of the Starter list. And if I can only order a basic salad, don't expect me to split the bill evenly ;)"

So yeah, that's what I would do (and in some cases have to do). Acknowledge that bad people with your particular diet exist, explain you are not one of them, that your diet (and believes which led to your diet) will only ever extend to yourself (maybe even mention that your married to a meat eater) and probably try to add humour to defuse the tension.

[Ceaon]

... try to add humour to defuse the tension.

Now you're just assuming I am funny. Vegetarian Man has many powers, but that is not one of them.

To be fair I can see why some vegetarians are quite, let's say, militantly assertive about their decision. It is similar (though not equal) to stuff like recycling or volunteer work. More people doing stuff like this is a net positive for many others, yet many people prioritize different things first. This is understandable. Many valid possible higher priorities exist, like one's own happiness, the happiness of people you know, artistic fulfillment, or a thousand other worthwhile activities. Even 'I cannot be bothered with all this' saves you effort and brainpower for stuff you do care about and which can be just as important if not even more important.

I just don't see many people getting annoyed by "sanctimonious" volunteer workers. (For the record, I consider that a good thing.)

[Aedilred]

I think it's essentially pre-emptive defensiveness. The crusading-militant vegetarian is, I think, actually quite rare, but most people have had a run-in with one at some point, and are wary of meeting another. It's the same kind of instinctive wariness that gets provoked, in my experience, by teetotalers and cyclists and so on: there is always a risk you're going to be subjected to, at best, a tedious lecture on the superiority of their lifestyle, and at worst a no-holds-barred assault on your moral character, and the experience or fear of that is often enough to put people on edge.

More common than the outright sermonising vegetarian is the one who inconveniences everyone, or is perceived as selfish. This can range from the dinner exchange between a meat-eater and a veggie where both parties cook vegetarian food, to an insistence on attending only vegetarian restaurants, or any party at which they're in attendance srving only vegetarian food.

In practice, again, this is much less of an issue than it can be perceived to be, so long as all parties are reasonable. Pretty much every restaurant has a vegetarian option these days and you'd have to go out of your way to find one that didn't, though maybe that's different in the Netherlands. Vegetarians in my experience cause much less in the way of food drama than people who are just plain fussy. Those who are unreasonable tend to get left out of social gatherings so they're no longer causing a problem.

Asking why you're vegetarian could be out of genuine interest, or as a form of getting-to-know-you small talk, but it might also be part of the same defence-prepping: often knowing why someone is vegetarian can give a clue as to how likely they are to be annoying about it. It also affects how annoyed you're allowed to be about the inconvenience caused by their vegetarianism. In my experience vegetarians tend to be one of six types: those who are veggie for medical reasons, those who are for religious reasons, those who are veggie out of habit and/or don't like the taste of meat but have no other objections (usually people who were raised in veggie families but didn't adopt their belief system about meat), those who are for environmental reasons, those who are for animal-rights reasons, and those who believe meat is unhealthy and/or fattening*. That list is also in roughly ascending order of how reasonable is is to be annoyed by the inconvenience their vegetarianism causes, and with one exception also roughly ascending order of how likely they are to cause annoyance (medical veggies are often the most inconvenience-causing, but it's not their fault). Knowing which sort of vegetarian you're dealing with can help you to steel yourself against possible ensuing unpleasantness.

Of course, there is a context to this. You know you're vegetarian and so can anticipate when it's likely to become an issue, and by giving people ample warning you can minimise any inconvience you cause them. Informing them after you've been seated in a restaurant that doesn't have any vegetarian options is not helpful; nor is arriving at their home for a dinner party having given them no prior warning: an annoyed reaction is only to be expected in such circumstances.

The above basically forms an answer to the first question, I guess, with some bearing on the second. With regard to the second more definitely, I would recommend trying not to mention your vegetarianism unless it becomes directly relevant. Introducing yourself as "Hi, I'm Ceaon and I'm a vegetarian" is likely to set alarm bells ringing for lots of people: it makes it sound like it's the defining feature of your personality and conversation is going to be centred around that. On the other hand, when it does become relevant (i.e. when food is forthcoming) mention it as soon as possible so that people can account for it. As far as jokes and that sort of thing go, I can't teach you how to be good at banter or how to have a sense of humour. The safest option is just to laugh along with them if people make jokes about your vegetarianism and change the subject when possible. If you have a bit more confidence you can try cracking jokes yourself, either at their expense or at your own, although that's more fraught with nuance and social difficulty. Reassure people you don't have a problem with meat-eaters (unless you do!), and it's just a personal choice on your part.

As to the third, I've met enough veggies of enough different varieties that I don't think I inherently make assumptions any more about the causes for their vegetarianism, all other things being equal. In some cases I might have already formed an impression of them which would affect my judgment of their vegetarianism. For instance, an overly sappy and cutesy person is probably more likely to be one of the "think of the fluffy animals!" types. A good friend of mine has become almost completely vegetarian in the last year and I was able to guess that that was for environmental reasons.

*Although I don't really consider this last type "true" vegetarians so much as just fussy. Inconvenience caused by them is generally not to do with the vegetarianism itself. In a similar vein, a putative seventh group of vegetarians for financial reasons could be said to exist, but given they'd generally eat meat if given the chance, I'm not sure whether they count either.

[A.A.King]

I just don't see many people getting annoyed by "sanctimonious" volunteer workers. (For the record, I consider that a good thing.)
I think that is because I've never had a volunteer come up to me while I was 'wasting' my time with something I enjoy and have them shout: "PLEASURE IS PAIN" (or whatever the volunteer version of "Meat Is Murder" would be. People advocating for volunteerism use less agression, I can't even imagine what "militant volunteerism" would be. If your movement doesn't contain a large section which believes it is okay to throw Red Paint or other kinds of 'fake blood' at other people, people will get less annoyed at you ;)



To be fair I can see why some vegetarians are quite, let's say, militantly assertive about their decision. It is similar (though not equal) to stuff like recycling or volunteer work. More people doing stuff like this is a net positive for many others, yet many people prioritize different things first.
Do the end justify the means though? I can think of other movements (though the board rules prohibit me of going to deep into it) that genuinely believe that most if not all problems in the world are caused by certain people acting in certain ways. If just more people were like their movement the world would be a happier less-tornado-y place. Just because you believe that your actions are the right way forwards, doesn't allow you to force them upon others. You do you, and I do me.

Even when you can scientifically prove there is a problem and that your solution would technically work (which the movement from my other example definitely can't) then that still doesn't mean it is a good solution and it certainly doesn't prove it is the best solution. You said you are a vegetarian because you want to reduce your ecological footprint. The thing is ofcourse that if there were less people we could each individually have a much larger footprint. Many of the problems that you would see solved by everyone being a vegetarian could be solved by making sure that 'everyone' became a much smaller number. You can not argue with the science or the numbers, making sure that 'everyone' becomes a much smaller group is technically a solution (but I think we can all agree that just because it works, we can't actually implement it.)

So yeah, just because a solution would technically work doesn't make it a good thing to fight for. Especially if it requires a lot of people to give up something they like before you see any results. There will be other better solutions to the problem you are trying to solve, a solution better than trying to change what many consider fundamental human nature. (I know you're not trying to make people change, but we are discussing the people who are 'militantly assertive'). There is a reason why meatfree monday have had more succes than general vegetarian campaigns. Tell other people to eat less meat, to just go one day without is a lot easier and friendlier.

[Winter_Wolf]

For the OP, your reaction of "ugh fine" or telling people that meat isn't healthy mark you as a self righteous a-hole regardless of your intentions. The bigger the group of no vegetarians, the bigger the a-hole you look like when you voice your disapproval. What your intentions are don't matter, people perceive you a certain way and have probably had to deal with militant vegetarians and vegans in the past. Really is a s simple as that. I wouldn't want to eat with you if you started doing that around me, for example.

[A.A.King]

For the OP, your reaction of "ugh fine" or telling people that meat isn't healthy mark you as a self righteous a-hole regardless of your intentions. The bigger the group of no vegetarians, the bigger the a-hole you look like when you voice your disapproval. What your intentions are don't matter, people perceive you a certain way and have probably had to deal with militant vegetarians and vegans in the past. Really is a s simple as that. I wouldn't want to eat with you if you started doing that around me, for example.

I think you misread OPs post. He is not the one going "ugh fine" or "it isn't healthy", these are the reactions he has received upon mentioning he is a vegetarian. He has been told that not eating meat isn't healthy, there is no indication that OP ever goes: "meat isn't healthy" to other people.

[lunaticfringe]

I am a vegetarian because it makes me feel better..... Boom! There it is. Nobody has anything to say about that because they don't live in my body and don't control me. I also don't whine about my lack of options, suck it up peanut. Your choice, your problems. Never had a bad reaction, it's your attitude I think. I don't know what has actually happened, but if I were to guess I'd say You probably get Defensive & Prickly yourself.

I live in the Midwest Merica though so I'm not sure this even applies in Yerp. Cultural Differences & Whatnot.

[Ceaon]

Pretty much every restaurant has a vegetarian option these days and you'd have to go out of your way to find one that didn't, though maybe that's different in the Netherlands.

Defending my home country for a bit: vegetarianism in the Dutch cuisine is pretty much accepted and mainspread. There are some meat/fish only restaurants, but even then they usually have a vegetarian starter. However, vegan choices are much more limited in my (admittedly limited) experience so far.


For the OP, your reaction of "ugh fine" or telling people that meat isn't healthy mark you as a self righteous a-hole regardless of your intentions. The bigger the group of no vegetarians, the bigger the a-hole you look like when you voice your disapproval. What your intentions are don't matter, people perceive you a certain way and have probably had to deal with militant vegetarians and vegans in the past. Really is a s simple as that. I wouldn't want to eat with you if you started doing that around me, for example.

Your misreading of my op does show something interesting. Why is it not well accepted for *me* to think badly of those saying these things about my personal choice of diet?


I am a vegetarian because it makes me feel better..... Boom! There it is. Nobody has anything to say about that because they don't live in my body and don't control me. I also don't whine about my lack of options, suck it up peanut. Your choice, your problems. Never had a bad reaction, it's your attitude I think. I don't know what has actually happened, but if I were to guess I'd say You probably get Defensive & Prickly yourself.

I live in the Midwest Merica though so I'm not sure this even applies in Yerp. Cultural Differences & Whatnot.

I don't think I am very defensive, though I do think your approach may prove fruitful. I will admit that one reason I usually explain myself instead of just going 'my life, my decision' (but more politely) is that I think that by sharing my reasons, I may be able to inform others and let them reevaluate their dietary choices. So maybe there is a bit of... zeal... there?

[Winter_Wolf]

I think you misread OPs post. He is not the one going "ugh fine" or "it isn't healthy", these are the reactions he has received upon mentioning he is a vegetarian. He has been told that not eating meat isn't healthy, there is no indication that OP ever goes: "meat isn't healthy" to other people.

OH, yeah that makes a bit of difference. Total misread. My bad. People probably still think he's an a-hole because they've encountered militant vegetarians, except now it's just collateral damage from bad experiences.

[Ceaon]

I think you misread OPs post. He is not the one going "ugh fine" or "it isn't healthy", these are the reactions he has received upon mentioning he is a vegetarian. He has been told that not eating meat isn't healthy, there is no indication that OP ever goes: "meat isn't healthy" to other people.

I'd even go as far as saying *some* meat is more healthy than no meat. It's why I have to carefully track what I eat to make sure I still receive all I need, while many who do eat meat do not.

[Corlindale]

As a fellow vegetarian, I don't really get that many negative reactions in real life. Most people are just curious or surprised when they find out. Eating out is the worst, but I always try to warn people well in advance and I'm always prepared to bring something for myself when eating with friends or family.

There was actually one incidence lately at work where I got quite angry. Because of a misunderstanding there wasn't a vegetarian lunch at our meeting. I had brought something else just in case so I didn't mind and didn't speak one word of complaint, but some of the people sitting next to me kept grilling me about why I wouldn't just eat the two pieces of salad around the steak covered in meat juice. I was honestly close to losing my temper, and I'm normally really level-headed. I would never comment on what other people eat or don't eat like that, it's exceptionally rude whether it's meat-eaters grilling vegetarians or the other way around. But as I said, this sort of occurence is very unusual for me.

Another small thing: It happens quite often that I contact a restaurant or hotel well in advance and politely inquire about vegetarian options. They tell me it will be no problem and that they will notify the kitchen, but when I arrive I discover that they've somehow forgotten all about it and it suddenly becomes a big issue for them. *That* ticks me off - and it happens way more often than you'd think.

I have no problems cooking meat for guests or for my non-veg girlfriend - who sometimes asks me to handle the raw meat for burger patties because she finds it icky :-)

I do see sone vitriol in internet debates about this, as with almost every other issue the internet will sometimes bring out the worst in people on both sides of the debate. I've learned not to read the comments on newspaper articles about vegetarian food, because I know how that debate will degenerate. I also occasionally see some quite offensive anti-veg memes pop up on Facebook, but it's not that common.

[Jormengand]

I too find it somewhat baffling when people try to argue that you're a bad person (or even more weirdly, that you must have some kind of hidden agenda) for noncomplicity in the killing of sentient* (http://www.rebekkahniles.com/2012/03/word-box-sapience-vs-sentience.html) beings, purely because some people (who are not you) protest in more fervent ways that uh guys, maybe killing things is something we ought not to do? When at the same time, I don't try to argue that the people who do eat once-living once-feeling creatures are bad.

Despite my honestly-held belief that killing animals is at least mostly as bad as killing humans, I still don't try to stop people because I know that I can't, and yet I have loads of people who will tell me that I'm being terrible for "Making" them prepare different food for me. Oh, I'm so sorry that my morality is inconvenient for you. Even weirder is when people try to convince me that it's a terrible, terrible thing to do even when it has no effect on them at all.

[nyjastul69]

I too find it somewhat baffling when people try to argue that you're a bad person (or even more weirdly, that you must have some kind of hidden agenda) for noncomplicity in the killing of sentient* (http://www.rebekkahniles.com/2012/03/word-box-sapience-vs-sentience.html) beings, purely because some people (who are not you) protest in more fervent ways that uh guys, maybe killing things is something we ought not to do? When at the same time, I don't try to argue that the people who do eat once-living once-feeling creatures are bad.

Despite my honestly-held belief that killing animals is at least mostly as bad as killing humans, I still don't try to stop people because I know that I can't, and yet I have loads of people who will tell me that I'm being terrible for "Making" them prepare different food for me. Oh, I'm so sorry that my morality is inconvenient for you. Even weirder is when people try to convince me that it's a terrible, terrible thing to do even when it has no effect on them at all.

I don't eat all sentient creatures, just the tasty ones. ;)

[noparlpf]

When somebody says they're vegetarian, I don't think twice about it or ask anything else. Especially since I work in vet med, so a lot of people are vegetarian on principle.

When somebody says they're vegan, I don't say anything, but I do take note of it. The difference being that I've run into more "militant vegans" who put down omnivores and aggressively try to push their choice as ethically superior, often without actually understanding how some aspect of agriculture or animal husbandry works (for example, honey is a big one that's often misunderstood as exploitative). I know that's not all or even most vegans, so I don't say or assume anything yet. But a lot of people aren't very good at separating out individuals within a group, so you end up with people assuming all vegans are going to be condescending and holier-than-thou about it and getting offended preemptively. I don't know why people do this and I'm not excusing that reaction; they're in the wrong for attacking you about it.

It's not like an individual has much of an ecological footprint anyway; that's on corporations and governments. So it could sound a little bit pretentious or self-important to say that it's to reduce your ecological footprint. (I don't see it as pretentious, I honestly just see it as hopelessly idealistic. Which I don't mind; I'm just too cynical to think it's worthwhile on an individual scale.) And again, some people would take "I'm doing this thing" to mean "I'm better than you because you aren't doing this thing" to mean "you're bad for not doing this thing" and get offended. I can't explain why people do that, but it happens.

[Ceaon]

It's not like an individual has much of an ecological footprint anyway; that's on corporations and governments. So it could sound a little bit pretentious or self-important to say that it's to reduce your ecological footprint. (I don't see it as pretentious, I honestly just see it as hopelessly idealistic. Which I don't mind; I'm just too cynical to think it's worthwhile on an individual scale.)

You seem to be mostly agreeing with me, and yet this is one of the most depressing things I've read all week. Thanks ;)

In all seriousness, I don't feel comfortable asking companies and governments to act more sustainable if I don't also try to do so myself, even if my attempt is "idealistically" ineffective. See also my signature :)

I recognize that it is a priviledge to even have the option to constrict my diet, while others starve. But I also think that, even though a contribution on a personal scale adds very little, feeling guilty does not really add anything at all.

Edit because I forgot to reply to this:


Tell other people to eat less meat, to just go one day without is a lot easier and friendlier.

If ever I was to start advocating my personal choice to others, this would indeed be the way I'd go about it. Just because I have taken my position to the extreme of "no meat at all" doesn't mean that I would be disappointed by anyone taking a less extreme step. It is indeed much easier socially, medically and also less time-intensive.

[noparlpf]

You seem to be mostly agreeing with me, and yet this is one of the most depressing things I've read all week. Thanks ;)

In all seriousness, I don't feel comfortable asking companies and governments to act more sustainable if I don't also try to do so myself, even if my attempt is "idealistically" ineffective. See also my signature :)

I recognize that it is a priviledge to even have the option to constrict my diet, while others starve. But I also think that, even though a contribution on a personal scale adds very little, feeling guilty does not really add anything at all.

Yeah, which is why it's fine. Props to you for having stronger ideals than me.

[A.A.King]

Despite my honestly-held belief that killing animals is at least mostly as bad as killing humans, I still don't try to stop people because I know that I can't, and yet I have loads of people who will tell me that I'm being terrible for "Making" them prepare different food for me. Oh, I'm so sorry that my morality is inconvenient for you. Even weirder is when people try to convince me that it's a terrible, terrible thing to do even when it has no effect on them at all.

I'll ask you the same question. Do prepare meat for non-vegetarian friends and family if so requested? Or do you force your so called "mortality" on them? Because your "morallity" is inconveniet. Now I have to think of a different dish in which meat is not a key factor (which in all dishes it is) or I have to pick a dish in which the meat can be kept to the side, and then buy you a more expensive vegetarian alternative which I will then have to prepare in an entirely different pan which then creates more dishes and even more work for me.

Either you both prepare meals the other prefers, or you both eat what the other makes. You can't have it both ways, expect special treatment in their house but force your ways upon them in their house. Common Courtesy.

[CozJa]

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that A.A.King (not only him, but mostly) has already gave you a lot of reasonable answers on many of your questions, so I believe my post is just to add something, probably already said.



Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.



1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)

I don't know if it's the same where you are, but for what I can see, generally vegans are more ill-received than vegetarians, because there are generally more "militant vegans", that can be really annoying. And, as much human as it is, people normally works by cathegorizing things, so "if X cathegory has Y faults, and you are part of X cathegory, you probably have Y faults" there is nothing iherently wrong with this kind of reasoning (that's just how human mind works) but many times the: "you probably have" can become "you surely have" creating some of the bad situations you spoke about.



3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?
Well, I'll be honest: if someone tells me he is a vegetarian I think he may be for medical reasons or for ethical reasons, and I may be curious to discuss about it (personally, I'm not that much convinced about the reduced impact of a vegetarian diet, but if one know what he's talking about a good discussion is always interesting) on the other hand, if someone says he's a vegan I generally think he follows some current and just try to talk about something else (as you can see, I myself am perfectly aware of my cathegorizing habit!)

[Winter_Wolf]

Pretty much what A. A. King says, if you get an invite to my home, I'll happily offer what I have, as a good host and in the spirit of friendship. If you're not going to be a good guest in return (you don't have to eat and there's going to be some vegetable dish anyway, but you don't get to demand special treatment because your of personal morality), then you do get the boot (only once was there a literal boot-ass meeting, but that's still one more than I'd wanted). It's one thing to say, "sorry but I don't eat meat/I'm vegan" and a while different thing to essentially say, "cater to my personal tastes even though it makes significantly more work for you." Because it does. There's not a corner market selling healthful produce just a bop down the block; I have to drive for twenty minutes to a store that Might have vegetables left on the shelf that day, I have limited time to prepare any meals, and I have limited funds with which to feed my own family according to our family values.

On the plus side, you'll probably start thinking of reasons to refuse any future invites to my home (which is redundant since they won't be forthcoming) and there won't be any awkwardness of a repeat of the first time.

[nyjastul69]

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that A.A.King (not only him, but mostly) has already gave you a lot of reasonable answers on many of your questions, so I believe my post is just to add something, probably already said.



I don't know if it's the same where you are, but for what I can see, generally vegans are more ill-received than vegetarians, because there are generally more "militant vegans", that can be really annoying. And, as much human as it is, people normally works by cathegorizing things, so "if X cathegory has Y faults, and you are part of X cathegory, you probably have Y faults" there is nothing iherently wrong with this kind of reasoning (that's just how human mind works) but many times the: "you probably have" can become "you surely have" creating some of the bad situations you spoke about.


Well, I'll be honest: if someone tells me he is a vegetarian I think he may be for medical reasons or for ethical reasons, and I may be curious to discuss about it (personally, I'm not that much convinced about the reduced impact of a vegetarian diet, but if one know what he's talking about a good discussion is always interesting) on the other hand, if someone says he's a vegan I generally think he follows some current and just try to talk about something else (as you can see, I myself am perfectly aware of my cathegorizing habit!)

This is well said. My personal experience is that vegetarians aren't usually militant. Vegans OTOH, are more likely to be militant. This is not a rule, only my personal anecdotal observation. I don't really care what anybody eats, as long as they don't care what I eat.

[Ceaon]

(...)personally, I'm not that much convinced about the reduced impact of a vegetarian diet, but if one know what he's talking about a good discussion is always interesting (...)

The argument that convinced me: If I can eat the same kind of food (impactwise) that a cow would otherwise eat, and one cow less needs to be "produced" because I don't eat it, that decreases the total impact of "food produced". Of course this is a simplification, but I think it holds up. I'd be interested in hearing why you are not convinced. As long as we keep the political aspects out of it, I'd be interested in your counters :)


It's one thing to say, "sorry but I don't eat meat/I'm vegan" and a while different thing to essentially say, "cater to my personal tastes even though it makes significantly more work for you." Because it does. There's not a corner market selling healthful produce just a bop down the block; I have to drive for twenty minutes to a store that Might have vegetables left on the shelf that day, I have limited time to prepare any meals, and I have limited funds with which to feed my own family according to our family values.

On the plus side, you'll probably start thinking of reasons to refuse any future invites to my home (which is redundant since they won't be forthcoming) and there won't be any awkwardness of a repeat of the first time.

I think my solution would be to bring some ingredients myself and offer to cook together instead of not coming to your place. Although I can see how some would consider that insulting to their hospitality.

[CozJa]

The argument that convinced me: If I can eat the same kind of food (impactwise) that a cow would otherwise eat, and one cow less needs to be "produced" because I don't eat it, that decreases the total impact of "food produced". Of course this is a simplification, but I think it holds up. I'd be interested in hearing why you are not convinced. As long as we keep the political aspects out of it, I'd be interested in your counters :)

I'd like to discuss a bit (since it's not an argument in wich I'm well versed) but I fear that this thread could derail fast if we start talking about it. Assuming that for cow "produced" you mean a cow that must be herded to be then eaten, then I think that the first thing to do wold be to exactly define the meaning you give to the term "impact" and "Ecological footprint". For what I can see, people generally sees word in a slightly different way even when they are speaking the same language, how much more when we are both using a non native one! :smallsmile:


I think my solution would be to bring some ingredients myself and offer to cook together instead of not coming to your place. Although I can see how some would consider that insulting to their hospitality.

Personally I'd like it, maybe we can exchange recipes :smallbiggrin: but I suppose that A.A.King example was more regarding people that thinks their perceived morality is more important than common courtesy, wich is clearly not your case!

Oh, since I forgot to answer to your second question I give you my two cents on it: don't worry too much on how to behave: for what I can see, people is generally more rude on the internet than they are in real life, and considering you are very polite discussing there, I suppose you should naturally be able to respond in a reasonable and educated way even in RL.

[Ceaon]

I'd like to discuss a bit (since it's not an argument in wich I'm well versed) but I fear that this thread could derail fast if we start talking about it. Assuming that for cow "produced" you mean a cow that must be herded to be then eaten, then I think that the first thing to do wold be to exactly define the meaning you give to the term "impact" and "Ecological footprint". For what I can see, people generally sees word in a slightly different way even when they are speaking the same language, how much more when we are both using a non native one! :smallsmile:

Agreed. You can pm if you wish to continue the discussion.



Personally I'd like it, maybe we can exchange recipes :smallbiggrin: but I suppose that A.A.King example was more regarding people that thinks their perceived morality is more important than common courtesy, wich is clearly not your case!

You can also pm me for recipees :smallbiggrin:


Oh, since I forgot to answer to your second question I give you my two cents on it: don't worry too much on how to behave: for what I can see, people is generally more rude on the internet than they are in real life, and considering you are very polite discussing there, I suppose you should naturally be able to respond in a reasonable and educated way even in RL.

Thanks for the compliment. I can handle polite disagreement quite well - in fact, I love a good discussion and I naturally gravitate towards consuming ideas conflicting with mine instead of ideas that align with mine.

But harsher comments or personal attacks tend to surprise me and throw me off, causing me to descend into the whole "man, I should have said something witty" 1-hour-later thought cycle. And often the only witty reply I can then imagine is something like punching them in the face, which I think is not all that helpful *or* polite. And only witty if you have a *very* weird sense of humor. So replying to that harsher attack is definitely something I want to work on.

[nyjastul69]

I eat meat. I especially like beef. If I were to stop eating beef I can't fathom how that would affect the cattle industry at all. I don't eat a cow worth of beef in a single day or week. I might however eat a cow's worth of beef over the course of a month or so. I don't think major food industries are going to be moved by my personal choices.

[Ceaon]

I eat meat. I especially like beef. If I were to stop eating beef I can't fathom how that would affect the cattle industry at all. I don't eat a cow worth of beef in a single day or week. I might however eat a cow's worth of beef over the course of a month or so. I don't think major food industries are going to be moved by my personal choices.

I can see where you're coming from. Yet if more people feel the same way about a choice and act on it, industries will eventually pick up on it. And evidently, vegetarianism is now a thing because many people's individual personal choices have joined together to become a "movement" (and I use that word quite incorrectly).
I think my choices as an individual consumer matter. If only slightly.

[nyjastul69]

I can see where you're coming from. Yet if more people feel the same way about a choice and act on it, industries will eventually pick up on it. And evidently, vegetarianism is now a thing because many people's individual personal choices have joined together to become a "movement" (and I use that word quite incorrectly). I think my choices as an individual consumer matter. If only slightly.

That's true. I just don't think there is enough 'momentum' for it to make an impact. Yes, most restaurants will offer a veggie alternative. I seriously doubt they took a meat item off the menu to do so though. I just don't think there are enough vegetarians or vegans to affect the meat industry. I don't think there ever will be enough to affect it.

Edit: A quick Google search says 3.2% of Americans identify as vegetarian, this includes vegans. That's not very many. You are 5 times more likely to encounter a person who smokes cigarettes than you are a vegetarian. It doesn't seem to be a popular lifestyle choice. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just can't see such a small amount of people having an impact. I'm not sure that they should either.

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't care if someone is on a particular diet, unless they start moralizing at me, or they feel the need to constantly bring it up when it's for moral reasons.

I don't care to ask someone why they have a particular diet either, either it's for their health reasons, moral reasons, or a personal experience that put them off meat. Whatever the reason I won't make them eat a thing they can't or don't want to eat, or judge them for it.

I don't feel "lesser" for eating meat, I can't not eat meat if I want to stay healthy. I also can't eat many of the foods required in a vegetarian diet for a meal to be nutritionally complete without there being negative consequences. Those consequences being pain, nausea or both.

[Knaight]

I eat meat. And as an omnivore I've noticed that a lot of omnivores are super defensive for essentially no reason. People not eating meat will be interpreted as people not eating meat at them, even if they are in no way involved. The scant handful of vegetarians or vegans who are obnoxious are generalized from; the people sneering dismissively at "rabbit food" are of course non-indicative and it is a great misdeed against omnivores to treat them as somehow representative. Sure, they outnumber the obnoxious vegetarians by at least an order of magnitude, but that's apparently besides the point.


I'll ask you the same question. Do prepare meat for non-vegetarian friends and family if so requested? Or do you force your so called "mortality" on them? Because your "morallity" is inconveniet. Now I have to think of a different dish in which meat is not a key factor (which in all dishes it is) or I have to pick a dish in which the meat can be kept to the side, and then buy you a more expensive vegetarian alternative which I will then have to prepare in an entirely different pan which then creates more dishes and even more work for me.
This is ludicrous. Non-vegetarian means omnivore, not carnivore. Meat isn't a key factor in anywhere near all dishes, meat isn't particularly cheap and the vegetarian alternative is going to be cheaper in any case where you don't use some sort of fake meat.

[A.A.King]

This is ludicrous. Non-vegetarian means omnivore, not carnivore. Meat isn't a key factor in anywhere near all dishes, meat isn't particularly cheap and the vegetarian alternative is going to be cheaper in any case where you don't use some sort of fake meat.

It is in all my dishes and while it is true that non-vegetariand aren't carnivores (we do still all require some rabbit food after all) that doesn't mean we can't consider meat as an important part of our diet. I eat meat at every evening meal, often I plan my dinner's around meat. To my culture, my heritage, my upbring e.g. to me having meat at dinner is important, just as important as not having it is important to a vegetarian. There is absolutetly no chance that if you were to join me at my home for dinner meat wouldn't be involved (unless I were to specifically prepare a meatless meal for you).

And the vegetarian alternative in my house will be fake meat, so it will be more expensive.

So my position remains, I will make an effort to accomedate your believes and view when preparing dinner if you will do the same of if I come over. Not all omnivores are the same Knaight, and this particular omnivore requires meat.

[Knaight]

So my position remains, I will make an effort to accomedate your believes and view when preparing dinner if you will do the same of if I come over. Not all omnivores are the same Knaight, and this particular omnivore requires meat.

Then find a term other than non-vegetarian that doesn't group the rest of us in.

[nyjastul69]

I eat meat. And as an omnivore I've noticed that a lot of omnivores are super defensive for essentially no reason. People not eating meat will be interpreted as people not eating meat at them, even if they are in no way involved. The scant handful of vegetarians or vegans who are obnoxious are generalized from; the people sneering dismissively at "rabbit food" are of course non-indicative and it is a great misdeed against omnivores to treat them as somehow representative. Sure, they outnumber the obnoxious vegetarians by at least an order of magnitude, but that's apparently besides the point.


This is ludicrous. Non-vegetarian means omnivore, not carnivore. Meat isn't a key factor in anywhere near all dishes, meat isn't particularly cheap and the vegetarian alternative is going to be cheaper in any case where you don't use some sort of fake meat.

What precludes the term non-vegetarian from including carnivores? It eems that the term encompasses both carnivores and omnivores.

[Knaight]

What precludes the term non-vegetarian from including carnivores? It eems that the term encompasses both carnivores and omnivores.

The use of the term for humans, an inherently omnivorous species.

[nyjastul69]

The use of the term for humans, an inherently omnivorous species.

Fair enough. Your statement didn't make a distinction. The context did though. I wasn't sure how absolute you meant your statement to be.

[A.A.King]

Then find a term other than non-vegetarian that doesn't group the rest of us in.

Why would I? Eveybody who is not a vegetarian or vegan has a different diet. Do you require the people who do not eat pasta or potatoes to find a special term? How about the people who don't eat fish? Do you require people who consider themselves omnivores to eat literally anything other humans eat?

I am an omnivore and a non-vegetarian, with a slightly more bigger emphasis on meat than you and I will keep calling myself both those things.

[Ceaon]

Edit: A quick Google search says 3.2% of Americans identify as vegetarian, this includes vegans. That's not very many. You are 5 times more likely to encounter a person who smokes cigarettes than you are a vegetarian. It doesn't seem to be a popular lifestyle choice. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just can't see such a small amount of people having an impact. I'm not sure that they should either.

3.2 percent is a lot of people. Blind people, veterans, people with specific allergies, numerous other examples... they have all gotten their voices heard and impacted our culture. And note that, at one point, almost every major group was a minority. Moreover, we are not including people who consciously do not eat meat one or more days a week in that percentage.


And the vegetarian alternative in my house will be fake meat, so it will be more expensive.

I'm willing to offer you cheaper, easier, less cumbersome vegetarian alternatives to a meat meal (or cheap ways to make a portion of what you are cooking vegetarian) if you are interested.

[nyjastul69]

3.2 percent is a lot of people. Blind people, veterans, people with specific allergies, numerous other examples... they have all gotten their voices heard and impacted our culture. And note that, at one point, almost every major group was a minority. Moreover, we are not including people who consciously do not eat meat one or more days a week in that percentage.



I'm willing to offer you cheaper, easier, less cumbersome vegetarian alternatives to a meat meal (or cheap ways to make a portion of what you are cooking vegetarian) if you are interested.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but 3.2% of the population is not a significant number. The person's with conditions you mentioned are not lifestyle choices. Being vegetarian generally is.

Edit: Of those you mentioned only veterans are a lifestyle choice. And that may not be the case because there are people alive today who were drafted and did not volunteer.

[WarKitty]

I do think there's a relevant difference just in the fact that I have yet to meet someone who thinks there's any sort of moral problem with not eating meat for one meal.

That said, the general reaction when I was a vegetarian was something like "oh but you're so skinny" or other response that assumed it was a weight loss tactic. I'm almost jealous of OP.

[Tvtyrant]

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

So by your own admission reactions run the full gauntlet of sane reactions. You have interested and positive, uninterested and positive, interested and negative, and uninterested and negative. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

[Ceaon]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but 3.2% of the population is not a significant number. The person's with conditions you mentioned are not lifestyle choices. Being vegetarian generally is.

Edit: Of those you mentioned only veterans are a lifestyle choice. And that may not be the case because there are people alive today who were drafted and did not volunteer.

You are right, they are not great examples. I still have to disagree with the statement that 1 in 33 is an insignificant number of people. Not (just) in the frame of vegetarianism, but in a general sense. It would mean half a million people just in my country alone. Half a million people eat quite a lot of cows.

Edit: Google tells me there are actually about 800.000 vegetarians over here, excluding vegans, so about 5 percent of the population. But I think the poster(s) below are right; this is a tangent and I think my argument is not completely sound, so I will concede.


So by your own admission reactions run the full gauntlet of sane reactions. You have interested and positive, uninterested and positive, interested and negative, and uninterested and negative. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

Fair enough! I would like less negative reactions (yes I know, don't we all), especially when they are based on untrue or generalized assumptions about me or vegetarians in general. I want to avoid the socially awkward situations that sometimes arise, by being a bit more informed about why some people dislike vegetarians. And I want to do that without me having to be preachy to anyone. Which I know is a lot to ask, but so far, you guys have helped me quite a bit.

[Aedilred]

I think the discussion over the statistics has drifted away from the point, to the extent that I'm not sure what the original point was supposed to be there.

From what I understood, the purpose in citing that statistic was to demonstrate that the numbers of vegetarians are sufficiently small that their collective positive impact on the environment is minimal. Instead we seem to have got sidetracked into a discussion about whether it's a sufficient number to... I don't know? Get special rights or consideration from the government? These two arguments seem to run counter to one another. If the purpose is really to help the environment then the focus should be on enlarging the number and encouraging other people to take up a vegetarian lifestyle so that it has more of an impact. By that line of thought, the number will never be "enough" until it reaches close to 100%. Comparison between representation of vegetarianism and other special interest groups is not all that relevant because the focus is on expanding the group, not protecting it: its energy should be directed outwards.

When it comes to discrimination, it's important to remember that discrimination is in itself value-neutral. There is a difference between discrimination between and discrimination against. There is also a difference between naturally-generated classes which may require protection from negative discrimination and classes of people who have for whatever reason chosen to put themselves in a position where discrimination may be a factor. Race, sex, orientation and medical/physical (dis)ability are factors over which an individual has no meaningful control and most reasonable people are agreed should be protected from negative (not all) discrimination as a consequence. I say not all, because in some cases positive discrimination may be needed to assist such people in leading as full a life as others outside that class: most notably, disabled people may require specialist installations in their workplace which are of no benefit to the majority of other workers.

An obvious example of the second type is criminals. Pretty much everyone is agreed that criminals should be treated differently to the law-abiding and that they have brought the consequences of that on themselves. This is discrimination, but not a kind the merits of which anybody but the most fanatical anarchist would dispute. There is an extent to which those who make certain lifestyle choices take upon themselves the risks and responsibilities of dealing with reactions to those lifestyle choices: their right to act in certain ways does not outweigh everyone else's right to respond to it in a way they think appropriate. People are discriminated between and against (and towards) for all sorts of reasons, almost every decision they make, and, broadly speaking, that's fine. It becomes a problem when people are being discriminated against in a way that's systematically unfair, generally because of factors over which they have no control.

So simply crying "discrimination!" isn't in itself enough to demonstrate fault on the part of another. At best it sounds like the point has been missed, at worst it sounds histrionic and entitled.

As always I think the best thing you can do is to be reasonable, polite, and considerate in your dealings with others. Unless you're secretly an evangelical vegetarian wanting to expand the congregation, you don't have to get anyone to tolerate or approve of your vegetarianism specifically, only to tolerate or approve of you. I do get the impression from some of your posts that you are presenting yourself somehow not as "Ceaon, a human" but as "Ceaon, a vegetarian" and and this may be at the heart of some of the reactions you're receiving. It should be possible to make a good enough first impression without mentioning dietary preferences at all that by the time your dietary habits even come up the pendulum has swung well in your favour.

[Ceaon]

When it comes to discrimination, it's important to remember that discrimination is in itself value-neutral. There is a difference between discrimination between and discrimination against.

Good points. Though I think that discrimination is one thing and generalizing is another.


As always I think the best thing you can do is to be reasonable, polite, and considerate in your dealings with others. Unless you're secretly an evangelical vegetarian wanting to expand the congregation, you don't have to get anyone to tolerate or approve of your vegetarianism specifically, only to tolerate or approve of you.

Agreed, and I am lucky enough to have plenty people in my life who approve of me.
Also, plenty of people who don't tolerate me but for reasons totally unrelated to my vegetarianism :smallbiggrin:


I do get the impression from some of your posts that you are presenting yourself somehow not as "Ceaon, a human" but as "Ceaon, a vegetarian" and and this may be at the heart of some of the reactions you're receiving. It should be possible to make a good enough first impression without mentioning dietary preferences at all that by the time your dietary habits even come up the pendulum has swung well in your favour.

Luckily, I operate under the assumption that most if not all vegetarians are, in fact, humans.

No, but seriously, that's an interesting theory. I never thought I was doing that, but it may very well be the case. I can certainly see how that would work against someone. Of course, this thread alone is not a great way to check if that is true for me, as I am only talking about that aspect of myself and not the dozens or hundreds of other lifestyle choices, hobbies, interests and activities that I associate with myself :)

[veti]

Now I do realize that you should be very upfront with any dietary wishes. If people are going through the hassle of preparing food for you, tell them in advance and they can adjust before they go shopping.

This.

The time to mention that you're a vegetarian is before you're sitting at a creaking table in Hagar's House of Ribs, where your hosts have brought you because they think the barbecue is to die for and they're really looking forward to your reactions to it.

I always tell my hosts "wherever we're going for dinner, please make sure it's got some vegetarian selections", and I don't get any adverse blowback from that. (Disclosure: I'm not a vegetarian. But I am very picky about what kinds of meat I will eat. "Vegetarian" is simply a shortcut to avoid going into that.)


That doesn't excuse the fact that those people are ***** though.

That too.

[DodgerH2O]

Something I haven't seen outright stated yet but expressed nonetheless: Food choice ties to Identity. "Our people" eat certain things, "Other people" find unpleasant or taboo. The modern interconnected world has thrown a lot of exception to the general rule that different cultures and families have traditional, acceptable ways to eat. Still, everyone has to eat, and most of us eat what our family/friends/neighbors raised us on.

Eating together reinforces social bonds, and by avoiding sharing a meal with others they may feel left out. Social snubs tend to lead to hostility and even if not intended as a snub, it can easily be interpreted that way. Communication should help with these sorts of feelings, but it's a two-way street and you can only do your part to let people know your feelings. You can't be responsible for how they express their thoughts.

[Winter_Wolf]

I think my solution would be to bring some ingredients myself and offer to cook together instead of not coming to your place. Although I can see how some would consider that insulting to their hospitality.

I'm down for that; this would be a fair compromise. Mostly, anyway; I have medical reasons that I can't actually eat several types of vegetarian versions of proteins. But you know, if you can show me something that's relatively easy and cheap to prepare (and how to make it taste good and satisfy my appetite properly), I'll probably incorporate it into the overall diet. Maybe. It's not like I can really return the favor if you're not into eating meat or at least fish.

[Ifni]

FWIW, I'm vegetarian, and I won't prepare meat dishes for guests at my house, and I don't consider this hypocritical, because requesting a specific ingredient is very different from asking that someone avoid a specific ingredient. Similarly, I'm likely to react somewhat negatively if I say "Hey, would you like to come to dinner at my house?" and they reply with "Sure! Please make [specific dish]. Here's my favorite recipe".

That said, if someone says to me, "Hey, thanks for the invitation, but I have a string of dietary restrictions/preferences that basically add up to 'I only eat meat and fruit', and I'd rather not only eat fruit for dinner", then I'll propose the following solutions:
- They can bring food they like, and I'll do my best to make a really awesome fruit dessert
-I can order a dish they like from any restaurant of their choice
-(if it's just the two of us) We can go out to dinner together at a restaurant that works for both of us

I haven't eaten meat for 20 years, eating it would probably make me sick, and I have zero knowledge of how to cook with it, so these options seem more likely to lead to a happy guest than "I try to cook something with meat in it for them".

This is pretty much also my algorithm for people with crazy webs of allergies/intolerances where the consequences of getting it wrong are a trip to the hospital, or with strict food-prep requirements that my kitchen doesn't satisfy (e.g. people who keep strict kosher).

Conversely, if I tell a friend I'm vegetarian and they go, "Uh... I was planning to make steaks", I'll usually offer to bring a dish I like (and share it around), and also express willingness to eat any vegetarian side dishes or salads they're making. I won't eat meat, because it is not going to improve the dinner party if I'm unhappy and/or throwing up in the bathroom, but I don't want to make things difficult for my friends.

(It's different if the situation is, say, a professional dinner where we're paying $100/person and it's all being cooked immediately beforehand. In that case, I will tell the organizers about my dietary requirements well ahead of time, and then expect there to be food I can eat. If I'm paying $100, they can go to the extra effort to make me a basic bowl of pasta, especially since the actual ingredients for my meal are going to be vastly less expensive than for the people eating high-end steaks.)

I don't bring up my vegetarianism unless someone specifically asks, and I also don't bring up the reasons for it unless someone specifically asks. Occasionally I encounter someone who does ask my reasons, and then picks a fight over those reasons, with the apparent goal of persuading me that I'm wrong. I think all you can do in this situation is stay calm, stick to what you believe, make it clear you're not judging anyone else, and try to change the subject. It will be obvious to observers that you are not the one picking the fight, so you'll usually have help in changing the subject.

[WarKitty]

I'm down for that; this would be a fair compromise. Mostly, anyway; I have medical reasons that I can't actually eat several types of vegetarian versions of proteins. But you know, if you can show me something that's relatively easy and cheap to prepare (and how to make it taste good and satisfy my appetite properly), I'll probably incorporate it into the overall diet. Maybe. It's not like I can really return the favor if you're not into eating meat or at least fish.

That's pretty much what I did as a vegetarian too. "Hey I'm a vegetarian, but I can bring a lovely lentil soup to share!" It's just polite.

[Bohandas]

The picture is starting to become more clear. One might take both those statements as a little sanctimonious. Something tells me there's still more at work here we're not being told but I've honestly no idea.

I doubt that is the problem, as that is a significantly less sanctimonious than the standard reason most people assume.

The more likely problem is that without the explanation people will assume you're an animal rights fanatic, a class of people who are widely considered offputting because 1.) their position creates a double-standard between man and other omnivores, 2.) people associate them with PETA, one of the most sanctimonious organizations on earth, and 3.) people associate them with new-age woo-woo

[Scarlet Knight]

First, allow me to say that if you are vegan to improve the world, I commend you. I may not agree with your choice but I cannot condemn someone who is trying to make the world better. You can always start one person at a time.

Second, I think you have received the entire spectrum of answers, from kind to hostile. That is just life with humans. Sadly, as you see in this thread, some people fear vegetarians always come with moral lectures or conversion pitches.

Lastly, I think the best way to deal with differences is communication.

I worked with a young Indian woman who was vegetarian. I invited her to my home, & she said: "Thank you, I'd love to come. I wanted you to know I'm Buddhist & don't eat meat. I hope that's not a problem? I'm happy to bring a dish if that helps."

It's hard to object to that. We had a lovely conversation on the topic.

[nyjastul69]

FWIW, I'm vegetarian, and I won't prepare meat dishes for guests at my house, and I don't consider this hypocritical, because requesting a specific ingredient is very different from asking that someone avoid a specific ingredient. Similarly, I'm likely to react somewhat negatively if I say "Hey, would you like to come to dinner at my house?" and they reply with "Sure! Please make [specific dish]. Here's my favorite recipe".

That said, if someone says to me, "Hey, thanks for the invitation, but I have a string of dietary restrictions/preferences that basically add up to 'I only eat meat and fruit', and I'd rather not only eat fruit for dinner", then I'll propose the following solutions:
- They can bring food they like, and I'll do my best to make a really awesome fruit dessert
-I can order a dish they like from any restaurant of their choice
-(if it's just the two of us) We can go out to dinner together at a restaurant that works for both of us

I haven't eaten meat for 20 years, eating it would probably make me sick, and I have zero knowledge of how to cook with it, so these options seem more likely to lead to a happy guest than "I try to cook something with meat in it for them".

This is pretty much also my algorithm for people with crazy webs of allergies/intolerances where the consequences of getting it wrong are a trip to the hospital, or with strict food-prep requirements that my kitchen doesn't satisfy (e.g. people who keep strict kosher).

Conversely, if I tell a friend I'm vegetarian and they go, "Uh... I was planning to make steaks", I'll usually offer to bring a dish I like (and share it around), and also express willingness to eat any vegetarian side dishes or salads they're making. I won't eat meat, because it is not going to improve the dinner party if I'm unhappy and/or throwing up in the bathroom, but I don't want to make things difficult for my friends.

(It's different if the situation is, say, a professional dinner where we're paying $100/person and it's all being cooked immediately beforehand. In that case, I will tell the organizers about my dietary requirements well ahead of time, and then expect there to be food I can eat. If I'm paying $100, they can go to the extra effort to make me a basic bowl of pasta, especially since the actual ingredients for my meal are going to be vastly less expensive than for the people eating high-end steaks.)

I don't bring up my vegetarianism unless someone specifically asks, and I also don't bring up the reasons for it unless someone specifically asks. Occasionally I encounter someone who does ask my reasons, and then picks a fight over those reasons, with the apparent goal of persuading me that I'm wrong. I think all you can do in this situation is stay calm, stick to what you believe, make it clear you're not judging anyone else, and try to change the subject. It will be obvious to observers that you are not the one picking the fight, so you'll usually have help in changing the subject.

I'm sorry that I can't be polite about this, but you are why some people dislike vegetarians.

[Vinyadan]

Once a person I just had met told me that he was a Jew. I have pretty much had no reaction. Which I was sorry about, since, if people tell me things out of the blue, it usually is because they really care about it and they think it defines them. But I really had nothing to say about it.

If you told me that you are a vegetarian, I probably would have the same reaction. It's not like I can say, "me too".

If you told me that you are going vegan, I'd probably simply tell you that it's a bad idea, if I cared enough about you and your health, since saying someone he's doing a mistake requires stress and conflict, so I don't do it for everyone.

Why other people may not like it? It can feel a bit like "I am holier than thee". It depends on how people read words, and it usually isn't a fully logical process. Actually, the problem is that the reaction is: everyone eats > eating in a certain way means those two things > we all are supposed to eat like this guy > here is the good kid my parents always compared me unfavourably to being all holy and look how good I am.

Of course, the fact that certain vegans/vegetarians are extremely aggressive, offensive, loud and pushy doesn't exactly help the overwhelming majority of normal vegans and vegetarians. There's always the fear that it's a zealot you are dealing with. I have also had to deal with cases of imposition, like "we're a hundred people and will stay here for three days, I guess we'll all eat vegan because the person handling food supplies is the only vegan here."

Or having to prepare double menus for marriages, or people being vegetarian informing you that they are vegetarians when you have already cooked everything (how about sending an SMS?). It can be a logistic hassle, stretch the budget, and the worst is if you find yourself with an inflexible guest who has nothing to eat (because he didn't write an SMS).

There also are the problems of pulling out of conviviality by wanting to eat something different from everyone else. It can be perceived as not really wanting to share the evening with others.

Anyway, I have no problems, as long as I am not forced to go vegan (vegetarian is OK), it isn't someone I care about who goes vegan or I am informed beforehand that someone needs special dishes.

[WarKitty]

I'm sorry that I can't be polite about this, but you are why some people dislike vegetarians.

Eh...I do think there's an asymmetry here. If someone has an ethical reason not to eat meat, you're quite likely asking them to violate their own ethics by buying and cooking meat for you. I have yet to hear of an ethical reason that someone has to eat meat. And I don't see anyone here asking someone else to cook vegetarian for them, unless it's a fancy dinner (and business lunches are a little different in terms of politeness anyway).

[Winter_Wolf]

Once a person I just had met told me that he was a Jew. I have pretty much had no reaction. Which I was sorry about, since, if people tell me things out of the blue, it usually is because they really care about it and they think it defines them. But I really had nothing to say about it.

If you told me that you are a vegetarian, I probably would have the same reaction. It's not like I can say, "me too".

Out of the blue statements like that are just non sequitur, though. How can you meaningfully respond to a statement like that? Can you say "oh okay" and then just move on? I mean, I've responded with those words, to mixed results, but I gather these people think there's some kind of etiquette we're to follow, but I'm not privy to it.

But hey it could be worse; strangers regularly confess their illegal activities to me. I'd really rather have a random stranger walk up to me and say, "I'm a vegetarian" than the oddly large number of people who feel compelled to share their drug abuse stories with me. A car salesman was telling me how he'd go home and light up a bowl every night while we're going over closing paperwork; or my supervisor telling me she hits the bong before mowing the lawn. I don't think I give off that vibe, I'm not dealing or partying, what the hell compels these people to share?

[Ifni]

I'm sorry that I can't be polite about this, but you are why some people dislike vegetarians.

I'm curious - what in that wall of text prompted that reaction from you? The bit where I said that I don't cook with meat*, so I'd prefer to order a nice meat-based meal for a purely-carnivorous friend from a restaurant (at my expense), rather than try to cook for them and mess it up, and similarly if a friend is uncomfortable about cooking vegetarian then I'm happy to bring my own food? The bit where I said that if I'm paying $100 for my plate at a business dinner and I provide ample advance warning (and the vendors don't tell me not to come), I expect to get something I can actually eat?** The bit where I said I don't talk about my vegetarianism at all unless others bring it up?

I didn't actually think any of what I wrote was particularly controversial, so I'd be interested to know what pushed buttons for you (or anyone else who felt the same way).

*Ethical reasons completely aside, I don't know how; I became vegetarian at age 12, and promptly learned to cook for myself, because my dad was in charge of meals on the weekends, and his idea of vegetarian food was "lettuce and carrots".

**I mean, I'm usually fine with a bowl of pasta and a tomato sauce I could make at home for under $10 and in less than 30 minutes, while everyone else is eating caviar and steak; I just don't want to pay $100 for nothing, sit through a couple of hours starving, and then have to buy a complete extra meal as well. I go to a lot of scientific conferences, where the conference banquet is a standard cost-per-person (and it's usually based on the expensive seafood/meat dishes, and some places are... not great... at accommodating dietary restrictions), so this comes up more than you might think. Of course, it's still not as bad for me as it is for people with e.g. gluten or soy intolerances; I can usually at least eat the bread rolls.

[Aedilred]

Once a person I just had met told me that he was a Jew. I have pretty much had no reaction. Which I was sorry about, since, if people tell me things out of the blue, it usually is because they really care about it and they think it defines them. But I really had nothing to say about it.
.
Yeah, that kind of thing is tricky. "OK" is probably the best answer. "That's nice" or "good for you" are other, more sarcastic options.


On the "awkward dinner guest" thing, I suspect there are some cultural and/or personal factors at play there which make for varied responses, not to mention different contexts for such situations, but if you're dealing with someone who takes their hosting duties seriously (I am one such) the offer to bring food may not help matters and may even make things a little worse. While well-meaning, it also carries an implied criticism/scepticism of their perceived hosting abilities. I would not dream of asking guests to bring their own food to a dinner party; if they offered I would feel obliged to decline (while also then feeling additional pressure to produce something better than they would have brought with them); if they arrived with food without saying anything in advance it'd be hard not to take offence.

Catering for guests and making sure they are all properly satisfied is, for some people, what hosting is all about. If some of them have special dietary requirements then I will accommodate them - and I have cooked completely separate vegan dishes for guests in the past, so it's not hypothetical - but I like to think there is an implied social understanding that they won't make unreasonably dificult to satisfy, and that if I have to go to extra effort to satisfy them then that will be appreciated. So long as I have adequate notice it's fine even if I have to go to extra lengths to deal with it. Inadequate notice resulting in a failure of hosting and consequent embarrassment will upset me because I feel it reflects badly on me even if it's not my fault. It may seem strange or illogical, but that's the way it is.

[Jormengand]

I'll ask you the same question. Do prepare meat for non-vegetarian friends and family if so requested? Or do you force your so called "mortality" on them? Because your "morallity" is inconveniet. Now I have to think of a different dish in which meat is not a key factor (which in all dishes it is) or I have to pick a dish in which the meat can be kept to the side, and then buy you a more expensive vegetarian alternative which I will then have to prepare in an entirely different pan which then creates more dishes and even more work for me.

Either you both prepare meals the other prefers, or you both eat what the other makes. You can't have it both ways, expect special treatment in their house but force your ways upon them in their house. Common Courtesy.

If you expect your preference to override my morality, that is, if you expect me to do something that I think is essentially evil in order to make you happy, you will shortly find yourself not being invited to my house. I would happily make allowances that I thought were inconvenient if someone had a moral reason for not wanting to eat them (for example, I would happily prepare a dish without some specific category of ingredients because of the environmental impact), but not things which I think are actually pretty much evil in order to make people happy. Though the fact that you think that morality isn't a real thing and therefore requires quotation marks, and that you can't spell it, is telling enough on its own.

I'm afraid that my own way of doing it - if you have a moral objection, that trumps a preferential objection - is perfectly consistent, and to expect someone to do something which they think is essentially tantamount to complicity in something equivalent to murder in order to satisfy your desires is ridiculous. To say that my morality is ever less than your whimsical wants is freaking insane.

[Liquor Box]

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with being a vegetarian, so long as you are able to do so in a healthy way. Nor do I think there's anything terribly wrong with refusing to prepare a meat dish for guests - no different from a normal person refusing to prepare a vegetarian dish for dinner guests.

Nothing wrong with a bit of banter about it either - like jokes pointing out that it is not very manly to eat vegetables. A bit of banter about our choices should be expected. the way to respond to such jokes, it to joke back about a characteristic of the person teasing you.

People probably ask about it because they are genuinely interested. There are different reasons why people choose to be vegetarians. There are two in my workplace, and I have asked both of them about the reason for their choice (one want to reduce his ecological footprint, and the other does it because his wife makes him), as well as given them a few pokes because of it. I guess respond either by discussing it, or by changing the subject.

I can't see why anyone would act aggressively or strongly, or genuinely attack someone for being a vegetarian though. It does sound very strange. I wonder if the opening poster is misinterpreting interest and discussion as an attack, or thinking of a particular example of aggression as if it were the norm.

[nyjastul69]

Eh...I do think there's an asymmetry here. If someone has an ethical reason not to eat meat, you're quite likely asking them to violate their own ethics by buying and cooking meat for you. I have yet to hear of an ethical reason that someone has to eat meat. And I don't see anyone here asking someone else to cook vegetarian for them, unless it's a fancy dinner (and business lunches are a little different in terms of politeness anyway).
Why are your ethics more important my right to eat meat? I don't get the high horse position. Your ethics are only relevant to you, don't push them upon me, please.

[Jormengand]

Why are your ethics more important my right to eat meat? I don't get the high horse position. Your ethics are only relevant to you, don't push them upon me, please.

Replace "Eat meat" with any action which is more universally agreed to be immoral such as "Torture people for my own personal enjoyment" and you'll see why it doesn't make sense. You can adamantly belive all you like that being complicit in the vicious mistreatment and deaths of our fellow animals is a personal issue, but you have to understand why not everyone sees it that way, just as I assume you'd be averse to someone asking you to serve them human meat.

[Liquor Box]

Why are your ethics more important my right to eat meat? I don't get the high horse position. Your ethics are only relevant to you, don't push them upon me, please.

I may be missing something, but Warkitty does not seem to me to be infringing upon your right to eat meat. He is only saying that the vegetarian should not feel compelled to buy and cook it for you.

[veti]

Why are your ethics more important my right to eat meat? I don't get the high horse position. Your ethics are only relevant to you, don't push them upon me, please.

Because negative rights always trump positive ones. Your "right to do X" does not give you the right to require me to do X. For any value of X. (And if you feel I've tried to trick or force you into eating vegetables, please feel free to complain about it. I'm not your parent.)

If I'm invited to dine with teetotallers, I don't expect them to provide wine. If my host is an observant Jew, I don't expect to be served ham. Their house, their rules. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Conversely, if I invite someone to dine with me, I appreciate it if they tell me in advance if they can't or won't eat something I'm likely to serve them. If I'm planning a hangi and you tell me you're a vegetarian, I can at least warn you "there will be a lot of meat, you sure you want to come?"

[Keltest]

If you expect your preference to override my morality, that is, if you expect me to do something that I think is essentially evil in order to make you happy, you will shortly find yourself not being invited to my house. I would happily make allowances that I thought were inconvenient if someone had a moral reason for not wanting to eat them (for example, I would happily prepare a dish without some specific category of ingredients because of the environmental impact), but not things which I think are actually pretty much evil in order to make people happy. Though the fact that you think that morality isn't a real thing and therefore requires quotation marks, and that you can't spell it, is telling enough on its own.

I'm afraid that my own way of doing it - if you have a moral objection, that trumps a preferential objection - is perfectly consistent, and to expect someone to do something which they think is essentially tantamount to complicity in something equivalent to murder in order to satisfy your desires is ridiculous. To say that my morality is ever less than your whimsical wants is freaking insane.

Thank you for, at the very least, providing a very good example of why people are leery of vegans and vegetarians. If we can muster up respect that you are uncomfortable with the idea of an animal being killed, I don't think its too much trouble for you to muster up the respect that most people don't share that discomfort and to please not call us evil to our faces as you have now done multiple times.

[Jormengand]

Thank you for, at the very least, providing a very good example of why people are leery of vegans and vegetarians. If we can muster up respect that you are uncomfortable with the idea of an animal being killed, I don't think its too much trouble for you to muster up the respect that most people don't share that discomfort and to please not call us evil to our faces as you have now done multiple times.

Good people do evil things. I'm not saying you are evil and, probably to no-one's surprise but yours, I made this clear in the first post I made in this thread. What I am saying is that I should not be obligated to break my principles just because someone else doesn't share them and I think that if you were told to break your own because someone else didn't share them then you would be very annoyed, hence the example I gave of asking to be served human meat. You would be within your rights to say that no, no you will not do that for them because you personally find it morally reprehensible. You probably also think that anyone who does eat human meat should probably be stopped, but apparently anyone who thinks the same of non-human animals is suddenly a militant or some nonsense of that calibre.

[nyjastul69]

Replace "Eat meat" with any action which is more universally agreed to be immoral such as "Torture people for my own personal enjoyment" and you'll see why it doesn't make sense. You can adamantly belive all you like that being complicit in the vicious mistreatment and deaths of our fellow animals is a personal issue, but you have to understand why not everyone sees it that way, just as I assume you'd be averse to someone asking you to serve them human meat.

Comparing eating meat to torturing humans is silly.


Because negative rights always trump positive ones. Your "right to do X" does not give you the right to require me to do X. For any value of X. (And if you feel I've tried to trick or force you into eating vegetables, please feel free to complain about it. I'm not your parent.)

If I'm invited to dine with teetotallers, I don't expect them to provide wine. If my host is an observant Jew, I don't expect to be served ham. Their house, their rules. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Conversely, if I invite someone to dine with me, I appreciate it if they tell me in advance if they can't or won't eat something I'm likely to serve them. If I'm planning a hangi and you tell me you're a vegetarian, I can at least warn you "there will be a lot of meat, you sure you want to come?"

Negative rights trumping positive rights is not a law. It is not absolute. It's an opinion. One that I don't necessarily agree with. Although the theory has some good points.

[Jormengand]

Comparing eating meat to torturing humans is silly.

You are aware that both are tantamount to inflicting suffering, whether direct or otherwise, on sentient beings, yes? To compare the two is not "Silly" in the slightest, and in the second instance it's a pretty inelegant rhetorical sleight of hand to ignore my entire argument on the basis that you don't like the exact analogy I chose when I could easily have chosen another.

[Liquor Box]

You are aware that both are tantamount to inflicting suffering, whether direct or otherwise, on sentient beings, yes? To compare the two is not "Silly" in the slightest, and in the second instance it's a pretty inelegant rhetorical sleight of hand to ignore my entire argument on the basis that you don't like the exact analogy I chose when I could easily have chosen another.

I don't think it is a good analogy to compare eating humans and eating pigs and cows.

I don't think the potential for suffering is the main reason for people objecting to human cannibalism - if the human is killed for the purpose of being eaten, the major objection is the deprivation of life. If the person is not killed, the reason is the insult to the corpse, perhaps with a religious overlay, which leads to a general feeling that it is icky.

Most people do not hold the life of animals as having the same values as human life, so the deprivation is not as great of a harm, if it is a harm at all. Likewise, most people do not hold animal corpses as sacrosanct in the same way as human corpses. If you do think animal lives/corpses have the same value as humans, then that is a bigger argument beyond the scope of vegeterianism.

[Fiery Diamond]

Negative rights trumping positive rights is not a law. It is not absolute. It's an opinion. One that I don't necessarily agree with. Although the theory has some good points.

Negative rights trump positive rights (in the sense the person who said it specified: Your right to do X does not mean you can infringe on my right not to do X). This is not an opinion you can disagree with without admitting that you are perfectly A-OK with declaring that you are more important than anyone and everyone else. Basically, by disagreeing with that statement (as you have done), you are essentially declaring that you consider yourself to matter more than anyone else. And frankly, that's enough to render your opinion on the subject not worth considering by others.

[nyjastul69]

You are aware that both are tantamount to inflicting suffering, whether direct or otherwise, on sentient beings, yes? To compare the two is not "Silly" in the slightest, and in the second instance it's a pretty inelegant rhetorical sleight of hand to ignore my entire argument on the basis that you don't like the exact analogy I chose when I could easily have chosen another.
You say sentient beings as though that has some power. It doesn't. Sapience is irrelevant. Why are you hung up on this term. It's not like I'm eating a sapient being. Not that would be a difference, cuz it wouldn't. If cows were sapient and not sentient, I would still eat them. As long as their sapience doesn't compromise their tasting, of course.

[Jormengand]

I don't think the potential for suffering is the main reason for people objecting to human cannibalism - if the human is killed for the purpose of being eaten, the major objection is the deprivation of life. If the person is not killed, the reason is the insult to the corpse, perhaps with a religious overlay, which leads to a general feeling that it is icky.

Most people do not hold the life of animals as having the same values as human life, so the deprivation is not as great of a harm, if it is a harm at all. Likewise, most people do not hold animal corpses as sacrosanct in the same way as human corpses. If you do think animal lives/corpses have the same value as humans, then that is a bigger argument beyond the scope of vegeterianism.

You'll excuse me, I hope, for having moved beyond visceral reaction to actually trying to prevent suffering, yes? Not that that's really the point; the point is that if you have a moral objection to doing something, even if it were less to do with creatures suffering and more to do with "General feeling that it is icky", then I for one wouldn't expect you to do it as a manner of "Common courtesy".

[nyjastul69]

You'll excuse me, I hope, for having moved beyond visceral reaction to actually trying to prevent suffering, yes? Not that that's really the point; the point is that if you have a moral objection to doing something, even if it were less to do with creatures suffering and more to do with "General feeling that it is icky", then I for one wouldn't expect you to do it as a manner of "Common courtesy".
It seems to me that the visceral reactions are much more yours than others.

[Liquor Box]

You'll excuse me, I hope, for having moved beyond visceral reaction to actually trying to prevent suffering, yes? Not that that's really the point; the point is that if you have a moral objection to doing something, even if it were less to do with creatures suffering and more to do with "General feeling that it is icky", then I for one wouldn't expect you to do it as a manner of "Common courtesy".

I have already pretty clearly stated that I don't think you should be compelled to eat or prepare meat.

My only comment to you was that your analogy was lacking, and you have demonstrated that. If your reason for not wanting to eat cows is to prevent suffering then it is different from most people's reasons for disliking cannibalism, then one is not an analogy for the other.

That doesn't necessarily mean your moral stand against meat eating on the basis of animal suffering is wrong or unjustified (that's another argument), it's just that societal distaste toward cannibalism (resting primarily on different reasons) is not much of analogy.

[Ceaon]

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with being a vegetarian, so long as you are able to do so in a healthy way.

Nothing wrong with a bit of banter about it either - like jokes pointing out that it is not very manly to eat vegetables. A bit of banter about our choices should be expected. the way to respond to such jokes, it to joke back about a characteristic of the person teasing you.

Your first statement is true of any diet, not just vegetarianism. Your second I diagree with; for the record, it hurts me when someone says or jokes that I am not a real man. Or implies that vegetarians eat mainly vegetables. ;)

As for the somewhat stronger reactions of others in this thread attacking/critiqueing each other diets, hosting abilities, and moral character, I'll just say I find it a strike against anyone if they generalize any expressions expressed by individuals here to an entire group (regardless of whether you think they are right or not).
And let's leave it at that, please.

[Serpentine]

I have yet to hear of an ethical reason that someone has to eat meat.
I can think of a few, actually. Eg:
- When it comes to driving practical change in animal welfare, consumer power is going to be a big part of it, and a potential customer choosing between, say, your factory farmed product and your rival's free range product is going to be a bigger driving force than the person who would never be your customer at all.
- I think vegetarianism, and especially veganism, requires a certain amount of privilege to execute. Certainly not to say someone shouldn't if they can and want to, but when some individuals stretch that to "the world should be vegan!" I think that's a bit rich and fairly insulting to those who can't afford to do so, or who are forced to do so by extreme hardship.
- If the world went vegan tomorrow we would not suddenly have a PETA-friendly utopia. Best case scenario, billions of sheep and cattle and chickens are slaughtered and left to rot. Worst case, they're all released into the wild or just neglected, causing a massive environmental and animal welfare catastrophe. And yes, I did once have to explain to one vegan why releasing all livestock in Australia into the wild would be a terrible, terrible idea.
- It hasn't really been used as such, but potentially eating meat could be a way to control pest animals.

I should say these aren't arguments I'd use to try and tell someone they're unethical to be vegan/vegetarian, but they are ethical reasons to eat neat that do exist, and reasons why I would certainly object to being accused of immorality or "evil" for doing so.

(P.S. Ifni, I also found that objection baffling. It mostly sounded pretty reasonable to me)

[Razade]

Your second I diagree with; for the record, it hurts me when someone says or jokes that I am not a real man. Or implies that vegetarians eat mainly vegetables. ;)

Tough. No one is above being made fun of and no idea is safe from ridicule.


As for the somewhat stronger reactions of others in this thread attacking/critiqueing each other diets, hosting abilities, and moral character, I'll just say I find it a strike against anyone if they generalize any expressions expressed by individuals here to an entire group (regardless of whether you think they are right or not).
And let's leave it at that, please.

Sort of how you generalized every non-vegetarian with this post?

[noparlpf]

I'm sorry that I can't be polite about this, but you are why some people dislike vegetarians.

I didn't see anything unreasonable in that post. It's all more or less the same way one would handle a food allergy.

Also, you can't blame the target of a rude comment for your own choice to be rude. That doesn't fly anytime after about first grade. If you think something is stupid and can't think of any constructive criticism, just don't say anything.

[Ceaon]

Tough. No one is above being made fun of and no idea is safe from ridicule.


Indeed. Doesn't hurt to ask people not to, though, or at least ask them to take it easy.


Sort of how you generalized every non-vegetarian with this post?

I am still unsure how I did that. If I did so, I apologize. It is not my intent.

[Liquor Box]

Your first statement is true of any diet, not just vegetarianism. Your second I diagree with; for the record, it hurts me when someone says or jokes that I am not a real man. Or implies that vegetarians eat mainly vegetables. ;)


My opinion is that you may be being a little bit oversensitive if you expect people not to poke fun at a quirk or choice you have made. But if you are sensitive about this issue, one choice is to fob it off with a lame joke (a chicken saved my life once so...) or simply state upfront that you are sensitive about the issue of vegeterianism so you;d be grateful if you could get a pass.

[Liquor Box]

I have yet to hear of an ethical reason that someone has to eat meat.

If one approaches morality from a utilitarian perspective, then people eating meat (those who want to do so) is morally good on the basis that it maximises net utility.

Of course it is possible to make a counter-argument that the utility gained from eating meat is outweighed by the utility lost (from eco-footprint or suffering of animals or whatever). Then one could argue back that, if utility to animals is considered, then meat eating is a positive because most cows, sheep and pigs etc would never have existed if not for farming - better a short life (and a leisurely well fed life for free range animals compared to wild animals) than no life at all.

I doubt it would be possible to quantify the net utility so neither argument is objectively better than the other. As with most things culinary - going with your gut is probably the best option.

[Ceaon]

My opinion is that you may be being a little bit oversensitive if you expect people not to poke fun at a quirk or choice you have made. But if you are sensitive about this issue, one choice is to fob it off with a lame joke (a chicken saved my life once so...) or simply state upfront that you are sensitive about the issue of vegeterianism so you;d be grateful if you could get a pass.

I may be oversensitive, yes. This is why I asked about help regarding handling this topic.

To be honest, some people can also be needlessly dismissive or even cruel regarding my diet. As was said above, if you have nothing nice to say, why say anything? To which I would add: if you wish to discuss or critique, why not do so without jokingly implying negatively meant features to the other party?

My compliments to your lame joke, though. I might use that one. :smallbiggrin:


If one approaches morality from a utilitarian perspective, then people eating meat (those who want to do so) is morally good on the basis that it maximises net utility.

Of course it is possible to make a counter-argument that the utility gained from eating meat is outweighed by the utility lost (from eco-footprint or suffering of animals or whatever). Then one could argue back that, if utility to animals is considered, then meat eating is a positive because most cows, sheep and pigs etc would never have existed if not for farming - better a short life (and a leisurely well fed life for free range animals compared to wild animals) than no life at all.

I doubt it would be possible to quantify the net utility so neither argument is objectively better than the other. As with most things culinary - going with your gut is probably the best option.

My argument stems from the earth being a limited resource. I don't know how that flies from a utilitarian perspective, though.

[Serpentine]

Having a go at someone for their diet, especially when they have made it clear they don't find it funny or friendly, is simply bullying. Declaring someone to me "less manly" for their diet is also sexist and potentially contributes to real harm - eg vegetables and salad = "unmanly" therefore consciously or subconsciously they avoid vegetables and salad therefore men are more at risk of various dietary health problems.

[A.A.King]

If you expect your preference to override my morality, that is, if you expect me to do something that I think is essentially evil in order to make you happy, you will shortly find yourself not being invited to my house. I would happily make allowances that I thought were inconvenient if someone had a moral reason for not wanting to eat them (for example, I would happily prepare a dish without some specific category of ingredients because of the environmental impact), but not things which I think are actually pretty much evil in order to make people happy. Though the fact that you think that morality isn't a real thing and therefore requires quotation marks, and that you can't spell it, is telling enough on its own.

I'm afraid that my own way of doing it - if you have a moral objection, that trumps a preferential objection - is perfectly consistent, and to expect someone to do something which they think is essentially tantamount to complicity in something equivalent to murder in order to satisfy your desires is ridiculous. To say that my morality is ever less than your whimsical wants is freaking insane.

No it is not, because your morality is freaking insane. You don't want to eat something, that is your problem. not mine and to force that upon me is stupid. Where I from you eat what you are served and unless you have a medical reason to not be able to eat something, demanding special treatment is of the highest arrogance. In fact, complaining about what the host serves is highly immoral. Luckily I know you to be a highly arrogant person, so your reaction is pretty much exactly what I expected. You think it is perfectly okay to trample over somebody else his believes about what it means to be a good host but that I ask of you to show me the same kind of courtesy is seemingly in your eyes the same thing as me asking you to slaughter the animal yourself.

The fact that you watched too many after school specials is your problem. The animal is not and was not a person. To compare the animal to a human, to say that it is like torturing humans is deeply offensive to the victims of actual torture, but you don't actual care about them or about being moral, you just feel sorry for the poor little animals.

Are you saying that personal morality trumps all? That we should all not do certain things because it offends particular groups of people? I can think of few groups of people who have asked the country to not do things because it offends their morality and you probably sided against them.

Your "morality" can only make you not do things, it can not make me do things. I think it is offensive to ask a host to make a special dish just for you but you don't care about my morality. I think that such special treatment should be a two way street, but you don't care about my believes. I think it is wrong to classify such a basic human need as "evil" but you don't mind labelling others.

(Oh, and real mature picking on the foreigner for misspelling a word from his second language. That shows real high moral character. Bravo!)

[Liquor Box]

Having a go at someone for their diet, especially when they have made it clear they don't find it funny or friendly, is simply bullying. Declaring someone to me "less manly" for their diet is also sexist and potentially contributes to real harm - eg vegetables and salad = "unmanly" therefore consciously or subconsciously they avoid vegetables and salad therefore men are more at risk of various dietary health problems.

I think that depends on how relentless and mean spirited the teasing is. I think good natured banter between acquaintances (usually at the expense of one or both) is healthy, builds friendships and is usually enjoyed by both parties. What I am envisaging falls short of bullying.

If a person is sensitive about a particular issue (like vegeterianism) I would be inclined to give them a pass, but I might struggle a bit to relate to a person who is sensitive about being teased about any issue.

I hope all this talk about vegeterianism doesn't put me off my dinner:smallwink:

[Razade]

I think that depends on how relentless and mean spirited the teasing is. I think good natured banter between acquaintances (usually at the expense of one or both) is healthy, builds friendships and is usually enjoyed by both parties. What I am envisaging falls short of bullying.

If a person is sensitive about a particular issue (like vegeterianism) I would be inclined to give them a pass, but I might struggle a bit to relate to a person who is sensitive about being teased about any issue.

I hope all this talk about vegeterianism doesn't put me off my dinner:smallwink:

See I'm the opposite. If I know someone is sensitive about something I'll drive it home as I'd expect them to do to me. We gain nothing but holding onto our insecurities. If you're so insecure over your diet choice that a good bit of friendly ribbing appears to be bullying then you have something else to address I'd wager.

[Jormengand]

No it is not, because your morality is freaking insane. You don't want to eat something, that is your problem. not mine and to force that upon me is stupid.

Uh, what? Are you for real? Do you really think that avoiding harm to any creature that can feel pain is insane? Like, I don't usually go for the "If you disagree, you must either be joking or under a misunderstanding" route because that's a very easy way to head off even legitimate arguments, but in this case... what?


Where I from you eat what you are served and unless you have a medical reason to not be able to eat something, demanding special treatment is of the highest arrogance. In fact, complaining about what the host serves is highly immoral.

Then all I can say is that I am glad that I don't live where you do.


Luckily I know you to be a highly arrogant person, so your reaction is pretty much exactly what I expected.

Okay, now I know you're not interested in rational debate.


You think it is perfectly okay to trample over somebody else his believes about what it means to be a good host but that I ask of you to show me the same kind of courtesy is seemingly in your eyes the same thing as me asking you to slaughter the animal yourself.

Oh, come the nine flying infernal hells off it, for the love of all that is great and good and righteous, just stop. To compare asking politely that someone not force you to eat something that you have objection to, to complicity in the killing of sentient beings, that is, beings that literally feel pain and suffer when someone kills them, for those in the proverbial back, to compare those two things is utterly, comprehensively absurd.


The fact that you watched too many after school specials is your problem.

To address the underlying point behind what is essentially a personal attack, no, no it is not "My problem" that large-scale suffering is going on but we as humans, especially as it would seem as humans who believe themselves inherently superior on some level, are tending to ignore it. It is not my problem in specific that this is occuring, it is just that I am one of those benighted few with the temerity to attempt to do something about it.


The animal is not and was not a person.

I know. I don't care, but I know.


To compare the animal to a human, to say that it is like torturing humans is deeply offensive to the victims of actual torture, but you don't actual care about them or about being moral, you just feel sorry for the poor little animals.

This is a total misrepresentation of practically the entirety of this argument, it serves no purpose but to be misleading and to be offensive, and I think that you know that, and chose it for that exact reason. To be clear, I do care when humans suffer, but I also care when animals suffer. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive.


Are you saying that personal morality trumps all? That we should all not do certain things because it offends particular groups of people?

I am not offended that people are going around killing living, feeling beings with little to no regard for their wellbeing. I am trying to prevent it because I realise that it is a bad thing. If you're going to go full relativist, then why shouldn't I kill, steal and burn? Just because that would offend people? Offend is totally the wrong word to use here.


I can think of few groups of people who have asked the country to not do things because it offends their morality and you probably sided against them.

This is too political for this forum and you know it.


Your "morality" can only make you not do things, it can not make me do things. I think it is offensive to ask a host to make a special dish just for you but you don't care about my morality.

Again, to compare asking politely that someone not force you to eat something that you have objection to, to complicity in the killing of sentient beings, that is, beings that literally feel pain and suffer when someone kills them, for those in the proverbial back, to compare those two things is utterly, comprehensively absurd.


I think that such special treatment should be a two way street, but you don't care about my believes. I think it is wrong to classify such a basic human need as "evil" but you don't mind labelling others.

"Basic human need"? I'm doing just fine without, thanks.


(Oh, and real mature picking on the foreigner for misspelling a word from his second language. That shows real high moral character. Bravo!)

I was in fact joking, but the fact that you put "quotation marks" around the word "morality", as though you "either" didn't understand "the" use of "quotation" marks or thought that "morality" was just something that those bloody people who care about animal welfare kept using as an excuse to ruin your life, rather than something that actually, say, matters.

[Ceaon]

See I'm the opposite. If I know someone is sensitive about something I'll drive it home as I'd expect them to do to me. We gain nothing but holding onto our insecurities. If you're so insecure over your diet choice that a good bit of friendly ribbing appears to be bullying then you have something else to address I'd wager.

That seems rather... unpleasant to me. I'd rather my friends stop teasing when I ask them. But that's okay, to each his own. We don't have to hang out.

I am going to repeat my question though: you've stated twice that I generalized non-vegetarians. Can you show me where I did that and how I did that, so I can avoid doing it in the future?

[Razade]

That seems rather... unpleasant to me. I'd rather my friends stop teasing when I ask them. But that's okay, to each his own. We don't have to hang out.

We rather won't have the chance, not that it troubles me any.


I am going to reapeat my question though: you've stated twice that I generalized non-vegetarians. Can you show me where I did that and how I did that, so I can avoid doing it in the future?

I already did in my first post I believe. I don't think I was at all unclear in pointing out the language you used was very much a generalization.

[Ceaon]

1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)

You quoted this bit. I still don't see it, unfortunately. Can you help me?

[A.A.King]

Uh, what? Are you for real? Do you really think that avoiding harm to any creature that can feel pain is insane? Like, I don't usually go for the "If you disagree, you must either be joking or under a misunderstanding" route because that's a very easy way to head off even legitimate arguments, but in this case... what?
I think it is insane to treat non-human things as humans. A cow technically feels pain because it has nerve endings, but it doesn't feel pain the way a human does. A cow doesn't know it is going to die, hell, a cow didn't even know it was a live in the first place. Also: is having nerve endings your only criteria for not eating something? I mean, you're probably perfectly willing to eat fruit and vegetables, which are still a thing's offspring. Vegetables are also a live, they have a natural life cycle which is cut short by the farmer. Why do those lives not matter? Is it really only because they lack the nervous system to feel pain? Would you eat a cow that had been genetically engineered to not have nerve endings (and therefor not feel



Oh, come the nine flying infernal hells off it, for the love of all that is great and good and righteous, just stop. To compare asking politely that someone not force you to eat something that you have objection to, to complicity in the killing of sentient beings, that is, beings that literally feel pain and suffer when someone kills them, for those in the proverbial back, to compare those two things is utterly, comprehensively absurd.
I'm not asking you to kill the thing it self. The thing was already dead, someone's going to eat it might as well be a guest who took the effort to prepare you something he normally wouldn't either. It is not absurd to say that to me eating is very important. Just because I can't make a grand statement like 'it literally felt pain' doesn't change the fact that, come dinner time, I always eat meat and you never eat meat. If I have to accommodate your habits you should have to accommodate mine, common courtesy.




To address the underlying point behind what is essentially a personal attack, no, no it is not "My problem" that large-scale suffering is going on but we as humans, especially as it would seem as humans who believe themselves inherently superior on some level, are tending to ignore it. It is not my problem in specific that this is occuring, it is just that I am one of those benighted few with the temerity to attempt to do something about it.

You sound mighty superior for someone who feels it is wrong for others to feel superior.





This is a total misrepresentation of practically the entirety of this argument, it serves no purpose but to be misleading and to be offensive, and I think that you know that, and chose it for that exact reason. To be clear, I do care when humans suffer, but I also care when animals suffer. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry, after being told one of my favourite and completely 100% LEGAL things to do is LITERALLY EVIL I didn't think you'd mind if other people got offended. When you end up in a discussion were Evil ends up including rape, murder and my dinner it ends up being hard to find what constitutes "misleading".




I am not offended that people are going around killing living, feeling beings with little to no regard for their wellbeing. I am trying to prevent it because I realise that it is a bad thing. If you're going to go full relativist, then why shouldn't I kill, steal and burn? Just because that would offend people? Offend is totally the wrong word to use here.
They aren't feeling. They are animals. The only basic emotions they feel are hunger and lust and everything else is just human projection. I try to avoid specific examples because, as you mentioned, some of them are not allowed on this forum but are you really saying that it is everyone's right to try and prevent things because they 'realise' it is a bad thing?. The only morality you need is to not infringe on the rights of other people (for example, by not throwing Red Paint over them and shouting "Meat is Murder").




This is too political for this forum and you know it.
The entire topic of Morally Justified is not allowed on this forum, but you are the one who brought morality into this debate. I was just showing you that "morality" cannot be an argument because everybody has a different view on what it is, and I know you are not the kind of person to agree with many people who make claims about immorality. Yet here we are, having to bow down to your specific kind of morality while condemning all the other ones.


Again, to compare asking politely that someone not force you to eat something that you have objection to, to complicity in the killing of sentient beings, that is, beings that literally feel pain and suffer when someone kills them, for those in the proverbial back, to compare those two things is utterly, comprehensively absurd.

I'm not forcing you to eat anything. I'm just saying I won't cook something different just because you have a problem with the delicious food I'm preparing. If you don't want to eat the meat, you don't eat the meat. There just won't be an alternative


I was in fact joking, but the fact that you put "quotation marks" around the word "morality", as though you "either" didn't understand "the" use of "quotation" marks or thought that "morality" was just something that those bloody people who care about animal welfare kept using as an excuse to ruin your life, rather than something that actually, say, matters.

I put quotation marks around it because "morality" is not a good argument. It basically means "thing I think is bad". To say "I think doing X is bad because it is immoral" means "I think doing X is bad because I think doing X is bad", which nice circular logic. Only when most of us agree that something is immoral, it actually becomes a bad thing to do (mainly because we can then make a law for it). Less than 4% of the population agrees with your morality, so to say that your morality is the right morality is actively putting yourself above 96% of the population (a very arrogant thing to do).
I also put quotation marks around "morality" because, as I said earlier, I know you are not someone who is affected when certain other groups invoke it's holy name. It has long since been established that we as a society don't do things just because a small minority believes that thing to be the "moral" thing to do. We need proper arguments.

So I'll re-iterate: If you don't want to do something, you don't have to do something but that same "want" cannot make others do something they don't want to do.

Since the OP and I reached an understanding regarding this several pages ago (he doesn't mind preparing meat for meat loving guests provided they put effort in making a proper vegetarian meal for when he is guest) I don't think it is right to de-rail his thread any further so this will be my last post I make regarding your views on the matter of common courtesy.

[CozJa]

Ok, I see this thread is slowly falling to (forced?) closure... (also Ceaon, I'm totally going to PM about ecological impact and the other things, It's just that I have many things to do hose day and I need time to prepare a good message :smallwink: )

But I'd like to point out that we are all going in a place that... well, practically doesn't exist.

All this talking about invitations and dietary needs and more or less quirks about what to eat and what not to eat seem to forget something really important: if we exclude some of the more vast social events (like Birthdays, holydays or similar things...) generally speaking you don't invite at your home somebody you just met along the road, but you invite somebody you consider a friend. So, if you consider somebody a friend 1) you know him, at least well enough to understand what he may like or dislike (clearly that may not always be true, but an important part of friendship is getting to know each other better) and 2) you consider the company of this person more important then some of his ideas you may find strange.

Let's just take Jormengand as an example, since he seem to be the more... assertive in this thread, while having an idea that most people find... strange.
If we were friends, I'd probably still think those ideas on animals as strange but, considering that mutual respect and knowledge are a (generally) given in friendship, I could accomodate for those convinctions, just as I suppose that a friend would accomodate for my ideas or strange habits, if really values my company.
If, for another reason, you have to have somebody with dietary moral ideas for dinner without knowing each other too well, probably it will be only for a time and it is possible to accomodate for that person.

And mind me, I find the idea that negative rights are always more important than positive rights utter idiocy (just like almost every absolute generalization); but let's not forget that reasonable people are not those without strange ideas, but those that can understand how to live with each other even with their respective strange ideas. :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

I think that depends on how relentless and mean spirited the teasing is. I think good natured banter between acquaintances (usually at the expense of one or both) is healthy, builds friendships and is usually enjoyed by both parties. What I am envisaging falls short of bullying.

If a person is sensitive about a particular issue (like vegeterianism) I would be inclined to give them a pass, but I might struggle a bit to relate to a person who is sensitive about being teased about any issue.

I hope all this talk about vegeterianism doesn't put me off my dinner:smallwink:


See I'm the opposite. If I know someone is sensitive about something I'll drive it home as I'd expect them to do to me. We gain nothing but holding onto our insecurities. If you're so insecure over your diet choice that a good bit of friendly ribbing appears to be bullying then you have something else to address I'd wager.
If you know something bothers someone and you continue to do it anyway, ESPECIALLY when they thing involves belittling, demeaning and mocking them, then that is bullying. Like, almost literally the definition.
And remember, moreover, that it isn't just one close friend doing this. It is, in OP's experience, almost every time it comes up, a constant barrage. And yes, veggos do get a whole, whole lot of that. I've come across plenty of Richardnoggin vegans, and that's what these non-vegs will be reacting to, but it doesn't make it a reasonable response in the face of a reasonable veggo who has not given any reason to warrant it.

[Liquor Box]

If you know something bothers someone and you continue to do it anyway, ESPECIALLY when they thing involves belittling, demeaning and mocking them, then that is bullying. Like, almost literally the definition.
And remember, moreover, that it isn't just one close friend doing this. It is, in OP's experience, almost every time it comes up, a constant barrage. And yes, veggos do get a whole, whole lot of that. I've come across plenty of Richardnoggin vegans, and that's what these non-vegs will be reacting to, but it doesn't make it a reasonable response in the face of a reasonable veggo who has not given any reason to warrant it.

You are mistaken. Not only is continuing to do something you know bother someone not "Like, almost literally the definition" of bullying, it is clearly outside most widely accepted definitions of bullying.

Bullying:
"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Implying that a person is less manly because he is vegeterian is not bullying. Abusing a person for liking vegetables may be bullying, but I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that.

Again, a little bit of good natured ribbing is generally a good thing and done if good humour. Continuing over a person's objections is not bullying, no one person should not dictate how the group conducts itself. However, if a person is genuinely sensitive about something and making fun of him is genuinely upsetting, I think the kind thing to do is to let him off the hook and give him a pass.

[AvatarVecna]

Where I from you eat what you are served and unless you have a medical reason to not be able to eat something, demanding special treatment is of the highest arrogance.

I take it they don't have "religion" where you're from, then? Or at least nobody devoted enough to their religion to zealously adhere to their religion's dietary restrictions?

[Ceaon]

You are mistaken. Not only is continuing to do something you know bother someone not "Like, almost literally the definition" of bullying, it is clearly outside most widely accepted definitions of bullying.

Bullying:
"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Implying that a person is less manly because he is vegeterian is not bullying. Abusing a person for liking vegetables may be bullying, but I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that.

Again, a little bit of good natured ribbing is generally a good thing and done if good humour. Continuing over a person's objections is not bullying, no one person should not dictate how the group conducts itself. However, if a person is genuinely sensitive about something and making fun of him is genuinely upsetting, I think the kind thing to do is to let him off the hook and give him a pass.

You are right. A better term would be verbal abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse).

Look, I disagree with you. You are defending your "right" to make others feel bad despite them telling you to stop, and that you feel you "give them a pass", as if you are the bigger person, when you do listen... it just baffles me. But I do not want to be drawn into an argument, so I will apologize that I am too sensitive for your taste, and hope that we can agree to move on.

[DracoknightZero]

@Ceanon

I dont think its so much defending the ability "to be allowed to make others feel bad", but rather that we call it the right things so we can make way for the worse issues and the actual "bullying" which is a serious offense.
On one hand one must be allowed to "challenge" someones position, though even if its not as "diplomatic" as one would like, but on the other hand the "challenge" shouldnt be escalated to something it is not. An example would be that if i disagree with your position and in my fustration call you a "moron", would that be a "verbal abuse" or just a less diplomatic curseword used in fustration?

The point i am trying to make is to not over-generalize issues so small issues get mixed with bigger issues to the point where the big issues get degraded to a "small issue", if anything its more about the usage of words so we dont "exhaust" their meaning to the point where people cant tell if you are talking about something important or not. ( Which doesnt mean it isnt important, just that you have the risk that people dont take it seriously enough )

Addendum.
A example of this could be in the phrase: "Meat is murder", if used in this manner ( wrongly ) over a period of time you start to wonder when people call a person for a "murder" and you go "Oh, i guess he likes meat then?" and not that he would actually murder someone as its such a shocking and rare occurance that it would actually be the case.

[Ceaon]

@Ceanon

I dont think its so much defending the ability "to be allowed to make others feel bad", but rather that we call it the right things so we can make way for the worse issues and the actual "bullying" which is a serious offense.
On one hand one must be allowed to "challenge" someones position, though even if its not as "diplomatic" as one would like, but on the other hand the "challenge" shouldnt be escalated to something it is not. An example would be that if i disagree with your position and in my fustration call you a "moron", would that be a "verbal abuse" or just a less diplomatic curseword used in fustration?

The point i am trying to make is to not over-generalize issues so small issues get mixed with bigger issues to the point where the big issues get degraded to a "small issue", if anything its more about the usage of words so we dont "exhaust" their meaning to the point where people cant tell if you are talking about something important or not. ( Which doesnt mean it isnt important, just that you have the risk that people dont take it seriously enough )

Addendum.
A example of this could be in the phrase: "Meat is murder", if used in this manner ( wrongly ) over a period of time you start to wonder when people call a person for a "murder" and you go "Oh, i guess he likes meat then?" and not that he would actually murder someone as its such a shocking and rare occurance that it would actually be the case.

I can see the value of that. However, I think calling someone 'not a man' because of their diet is not a very good example of what you are talking about - especially if the receiving party says "no". Don't get me wrong, I can joke around and I see teasing as a valid interaction between friends which can be fun and bonding. But when I say no, I want the other to stop. "No means no" is another one of those phrases that gets thrown around a lot, but it has value. And yes, I think it works the other way around as well, meaning, for example I try to refrain from talking about/explaining my vegetariansim to non-vegetarians unless they explicitly ask me about it. Ah well.

[DracoknightZero]

I can see the value of that. However, I think calling someone 'not of a man' because of their diet is not a very good example of what you are talking about - especially if the receiving party says "no". Don't get me wrong, I can joke around and I see teasing as a valid interaction between friends which can be fun and bonding. But when I say no, I want the other to stop. "No means no" is another one of those phrases that gets thrown around a lot, but it has value. And yes, I think it works the other way around as well, meaning, for example I do not insist on converting non-vegetarians. Ah well.

Quite understandable, i was just trying to salvage the good point in the discussion.
The "no means no" part is all well and good between inviduals, though its hard to make a group comply... so maybe it have something to do with expectations?

Anyho, Vegans/Vegatarians are not much of a issue to me in general. The ones who IS a issue to me are those who try to force their way apon others, and thats not only restricted to the Vegans/Vegatarians, but everyone.

[Serpentine]

You are mistaken. Not only is continuing to do something you know bother someone not "Like, almost literally the definition" of bullying, it is clearly outside most widely accepted definitions of bullying.

Bullying:
"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Implying that a person is less manly because he is vegeterian is not bullying. Abusing a person for liking vegetables may be bullying, but I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that.

Again, a little bit of good natured ribbing is generally a good thing and done if good humour. Continuing over a person's objections is not bullying, no one person should not dictate how the group conducts itself. However, if a person is genuinely sensitive about something and making fun of him is genuinely upsetting, I think the kind thing to do is to let him off the hook and give him a pass.
From that very same Wikipedia article:


Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment... Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal... There is no universal definition of bullying, however, it is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[10] Bullying may thus be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally or emotionally. The Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus[11] says bullying occurs when a person is "exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons". He says negative actions occur "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through... words or in other ways."

Verbal
This is any bullying that is done by speaking. Calling names, spreading rumors, threatening somebody, and making fun of others are all forms of verbal bullying. Verbal bullying is one of the most common types of bullying. In verbal bullying the main weapon the bully uses is their voice.[11]
Sounds like persistently belittling, demeaning and insulting your veggo "friends" to me.

Oh look, someone wrote an article about exactly this (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/02/10/verbally-abusing-your-vegan-friends-isnt-edgy-its-just-being-a-bully/).

Also, as I already alluded to, tying a person's masculinity to their diet in a derogatory and sexist manner is its own bundle of douchey.

At best, this is all being an [buttface]. That's not really a great best-case scenario.

[Lemmy]

My opinion is this:

Everyone has the right to not eat whatever they want... But if they expect special treatment, they'll be throughly disappointed.

Don't like what's on the table? Don't eat it. But don't demand alternatives or expect me to invite you the next time I'm cooking something similar.

[KuReshtin]

I would like to weigh in on this for a second if I may.

To the OP, I think that your reasons for choosing to be a vegetarian/vegan are admirable, and I applaud you for making the effort of sticking to your beliefs on that. Personally, I'm a meat-eater and don't think I'll convert to a vegetarian diet anytime soon.

However!

If I had invited you over for a dinner meal, and you told me you are a vegetarian, I would do the decent thing and respect your choice of diet, which would end in one of two options.
1. I would cook a meal with a vegetarian option for you, and a non-vegetarian option for me.
2. I would make a vegetarian meal and enjoy it with you and forego my meat option.
Skipping meat for one meal will not make me any less of a meat eater, and it would also show you that I respect your choice, whatever your reasons may be.

If I had invited you to dinner and you'd told me you were of a particular religious faith requiring you not to eat pork, then I'd make sure I would cook a meal that didn't include bacon, even if I really like bacon myself. Skipping one meal with bacon doesn't make me less of a bacon-eater.

If you were to invite me for dinner, I would NOT expect you to cook me a meal including meat because I wouldn't expect you to have any meat in your home to cook.
However, if you had decided to go for option 1 listed above, making one meat free meal option for you and one meat option for me, I would be happy that you had made the effort.
If you planned on going for the option of cooking both a meat and a non-meat meal and informed me about your plan beforehand, I would insist that you shouldn't go out of your way and just go for the non-meat option as I'd be happy to go for that.

I feel this is a good and respectful way of dealing with things.
Just not being a 'Richard' about it helps.


My go-to argument when this discussion comes up is the fact that I do not drink coffee. I just don't like it. Can't stand it, in fact.
So, if I go to someone's house, and they ask me if I want a cup of coffee, I politely decline and ask if there are any options available. Like tea. if the person doesn't have tea, I'll be happy to drink whatever we've had to drink so far, or just a glass of juice or milk instead. I will not make a big deal out of the fact that i don't drink coffee and I won't begrudge you your cup of coffee jusst because I don't drink it.
On the other hand, if I invite you to my place, and you know I don't drink coffee, I would hope that you wouldn't expect me to have coffee available for you to drink. Since I don't drink it, it wouldn't make sense for me to have coffee in my house on the off chance that there's someone who needs one or possibly two cups of coffee once in a blue moon.
As a matter of act, if I had coffee in my cupboard, it would probably have gone bad anyway and wouldn't be goof to drink for anyone, coffee drinker or not.


Now, even if I respect your choice of being a vegetarian, once i get to know you, I'm likely to occasionally make a joke about it. Like the t-shirts I bought on my recent trip to the USA, which have 'PETA' written in large letters across the front, with 'People Eating Tasty Animals' written in smaller letters underneath, and some generally 'anti-vegetarianism' quotes on the back*.
I did buy them at a Beef Jerky outlet, though, so I guess they'd never be very pro-vegetarianism in the first place.
I'm pretty sure I'll wear one of them to our team lunch this weekend, when we're going to a Brazilian steak-house place where they sell 18 types of meat and they come carve it up at your table. Totally not a vegetarian place to go and not something I'd recommend if I had vegetarian friends visiting and wanting to go out for a meal.

Because that would be a 'Richard' move to make.



"Vegetarian is old tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride."
"If it has a name, it's a pet. If it doesn't, make jerky out of it."

[WarKitty]

I do wonder if some of this is cultural. The U.S., in my experience, tends to have a pretty high level of "don't ask someone else to violate their beliefs" ingrained. In fact I know a lot of people (myself included) who think it would be quite rude to ask an ethical vegetarian to cook meat for someone else, or to expect them to eat meat when their ethical beliefs preclude them from doing so. If someone has a sincere moral belief, you don't ask them to violate it unless the stakes are a LOT higher than what's for dinner.

[Vinyadan]

If I were to invite a vegetarian, I would prepare something vegetarian for everyone. You can easily prepare a complete meal this way. I don't believe the idea that eating meat after long abstinence is unhealthy, but it's a very little thing to accommodate, and there is no need to make your guest unhappy about this, not to say anything about forcing abandonment of ethics.

I however wouldn't do the same for a vegan. It would require some byzantine calibration and would still not be a complete meal. I guess I'd give him a lot of carbs to satiate him and be done with it, in the hope that he doesn't pull out stuff like vegan wine (not bad, he can just not drink it) and pasta or bread containing XXY animal derived product (very bad, it's not like I buy kilograms of pasta thinking about that one vegan who might come to my house), and let animal derived products be available on the table for everyone who wants to eat them.

Since I consider vegan diets unhealthy, I don't think I'd allow him to endorse them in my house, if there are children nearby. It's not that I would immediately throw him out, but I surely wouldn't invite him again.

But I sure wouldn't expect or ask a vegan or vegetarian to cook meat because I am there. It's just not the same thing. If I am in a house in which it is normal to pick spiders and throw them out, I am not going to ask them to start splatting them because that's what I do and I am their guest. And, while veganism isn't healthy, it still won't kill you in one dinner (it's a bit like McDonald's in this respect). If it lasts for various days, however, I will respectfully demand cheese.

[Serpentine]

I do wonder if some of this is cultural. The U.S., in my experience, tends to have a pretty high level of "don't ask someone else to violate their beliefs" ingrained. In fact I know a lot of people (myself included) who think it would be quite rude to ask an ethical vegetarian to cook meat for someone else, or to expect them to eat meat when their ethical beliefs preclude them from doing so. If someone has a sincere moral belief, you don't ask them to violate it unless the stakes are a LOT higher than what's for dinner.
I'm getting kinda frustrated at my work. We have one gluten sensitive person in the office, one lactose intolerant, and I'm pretty sure at least 3 veggos. Yet at every meeting and stuff, the boss always has a gluten free thing and hardly ever a vegan (and therefore vegetarian and lactose free) option. I'm annoyed at my boss for insisting that "there isn't anything to get!", and at the veggos for not helping him out with possibilities.
Also on a more personal note I'm bummed out that the other week we had a Cupcake Day best cupcake competition, and my best cupcake happened to also be vegan, but hardly anyone ate any - and therefore it didn't get voted for - presumably because "oh no vegan" :(

For your interest, here's the recipe I used for the cupcakes:

1 3/4 cups (220g) plain flour
1 cup (200g) sugar
1 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp salt
1 cup (240ml) non-dairy milk
2 tsp (10ml) vanilla extract
1/3 cup (80ml) olive oil
1 tbs (15ml) white vinegar.

3 3/4 cups (450g) icing sugar
3 tbsp vegan butter
4 tbsp non-dairy milk
2 tsp vanilla extract

1. Preheat oven to 350oF/180oC.
2. Sift flour. Add sugar, baking soda and salt. Mix.
3. Add milk, vanilla, oil and vinegar. Whisk.
4. Grease two 7 inch round cake tins with coconut oil and divide mixture between them.
5. Bake for 30 minutes.
6. Stab with a toothpick. If it comes out clean it's done.
7. Cool cake.

ICING
1. Combine all ingredients with an electric mixer until smooth and creamy.
2. When cakes cool, ice one of the cakes.
3. Place second cake on top of the other.
4. Ice whole cake and decorate.

THINGS I DID DIFFERENT
- Replace flour, baking soda and vinegar with self-raising flour
- Used almond milk. Didn't realise that the milk was sweetened and vanilla flavoured until after I'd added vanilla, so it ended up a bit over-vanillaed.
- Replace olive oil with macadamia oil.
- My icing, iirc, was made with icing, Nuttelex and mashed blueberries.
- Put it in a bunch of cupcakes instead of large cakes.
- Added a few blueberries to each cupcake and a single fresh blueberry on top of the icing.

Aside from the screw up with the pre-sweetened almond milk these were really, really good.

[Ceaon]

I'm getting kinda frustrated at my work. We have one gluten sensitive person in the office, one lactose intolerant, and I'm pretty sure at least 3 veggos. Yet at every meeting and stuff, the boss always has a gluten free thing and hardly ever a vegan (and therefore vegetarian and lactose free) option. I'm annoyed at my boss for insisting that "there isn't anything to get!", and at the veggos for not helping him out with possibilities.
Also on a more personal note I'm bummed out that the other week we had a Cupcake Day best cupcake competition, and my best cupcake happened to also be vegan, but hardly anyone ate any - and therefore it didn't get voted for - presumably because "oh no vegan" :(

For your interest, here's the recipe I used for the cupcakes:
(RECIPE)


That sucks. I'd ask your boss whether he/she would like for you to make some suggestions so he/she doesn't have to spend all the effort looking for alternatives. To be fair, looking for meals that can satisfy all these different groups may be hard for someone not well versed in - let's call it the alternative kitchen for lack of a better term.

Also, consider that recipe yoinked!

[Vinyadan]

Now I am curious about non dairy milk and vegan butter...

[Serpentine]

That sucks. I'd ask your boss whether he/she would like for you to make some suggestions so he/she doesn't have to spend all the effort looking for alternatives. To be fair, looking for meals that can satisfy all these different groups may be hard for someone not well versed in - let's call it the alternative kitchen for lack of a better term.

Also, consider that recipe yoinked!Not much point me looking, since I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and so don't really know what to look for.
Although I did once have to tell a vegetarian that they had to check cheese for animal rennet...


Now I am curious about non dairy milk and vegan butter...
Off the top of my head, there's soy milk, almond milk (my preference), rice milk and coconut milk. For butter, there's some margarines, although a lot of margarines still have some dairy in them. When I needed to cook for vegans I went looking, and Nuttelex was pretty much the only one I could find that was certified vegan-appropriate.

[LinkBoy]

Lol @ eating meat to every meal and demanding that your host serves you meat. Not eating something and asking that specific thing to be left out of your food is abysmally different from demanding a specific ingredient in every meal.

Also, yes, repeated verbal abuse when it is the clear the one of the recieving end is not enjoying it is, well, abuse. And questioning someone's gender because of their eating habits is stupid at best and incredibly cissexist at worst.

[Murk]

I'm always a bit in doubt about the "preachy vegetarian"-thing (if such a thing is even as common as people make it seem).

On the one hand, it's never much fun getting preached to. It points out your own flaws, it makes the preacher seem arrogant, etc.
On the other hand, if someone truly believes that eating meat is murder, it'd be quite hypocritical if they didn't try to stop me from doing it. If you believe I am murdering someone, you better not sit idly by.
Or, at least, I think mankind would be better off if nobody sat idly by while they believed murders were happening.

So there's the thing: even though I might not agree that meat is murder (not sure if I agree or not), I do want people to try their very best to prevent murders. If their definition of murder differs from mine, so be it, I'll get preached to. It's worth it.


---


Having said that, I think the main problem that OP (and others) have is that vegetarianism seems to be a lifestyle. As others have said, "not drinking coffee" or "not liking sushi" or, heck, "not being particularly fond of cookies" doesn't have its own name. If you ask in a restaurant for a dessert, but "could you please leave the almonds out?", that would be fine. If you go to someone's place and ask for a portion without salt, that's fine.
But if you don't want to eat meat or fish, suddenly there's a problem: people start talking about "meat-eaters" and "vegetarians" as if these are actually large parts of their identity - as if eating meat or not defines who you are (as opposed to drinking coffee).
I'm not sure why "vegetarianism" is a lifestyle, and not drinking coffee isn't. But I think it contributes a lot to the "fights" that are happening.

[Ceaon]

I'm always a bit in doubt about the "preachy vegetarian"-thing (if such a thing is even as common as people make it seem).

On the one hand, it's never much fun getting preached to. It points out your own flaws, it makes the preacher seem arrogant, etc.
On the other hand, if someone truly believes that eating meat is murder, it'd be quite hypocritical if they didn't try to stop me from doing it. If you believe I am murdering someone, you better not sit idly by.
Or, at least, I think mankind would be better off if nobody sat idly by while they believed murders were happening.

So there's the thing: even though I might not agree that meat is murder (not sure if I agree or not), I do want people to try their very best to prevent murders. If their definition of murder differs from mine, so be it, I'll get preached to. It's worth it.


---


Having said that, I think the main problem that OP (and others) have is that vegetarianism seems to be a lifestyle. As others have said, "not drinking coffee" or "not liking sushi" or, heck, "not being particularly fond of cookies" doesn't have its own name. If you ask in a restaurant for a dessert, but "could you please leave the almonds out?", that would be fine. If you go to someone's place and ask for a portion without salt, that's fine.
But if you don't want to eat meat or fish, suddenly there's a problem: people start talking about "meat-eaters" and "vegetarians" as if these are actually large parts of their identity - as if eating meat or not defines who you are (as opposed to drinking coffee).
I'm not sure why "vegetarianism" is a lifestyle, and not drinking coffee isn't. But I think it contributes a lot to the "fights" that are happening.

Interesting points. Would you say it is hypocritical of me not to end my posts with something like "save the earth, decrease animal husbandry!" (but, well, catchier) because that is my personal belief and ideal? Am I a hypocrit for not trying to convert others to lessen their meat consumption, if only for a day a week?

And I think that is the reason it is a lifestyle. Only very few vegetarians dont eat meat because they don't like it or are allergic. They often have a reason and have made a personal, conscious decision to (continue to) stop eating it.

Edit: and again, I doubt vegetarianism would even show up if I had to make a list of my top 20 traits. Yet it is a part of my identity, as being a vegetarian flows quite naturally from several of my strongly held beliefs.

[A.A.King]

I take it they don't have "religion" where you're from, then? Or at least nobody devoted enough to their religion to zealously adhere to their religion's dietary restrictions?
The latter. I guess the countryside and village life just makes it hard to be a zealout. Jews, Christians and Muslims a like here eat what is available/offered/served (Though I guess that isn't saying much about Christians, they famously eat everything). (I left out Hindus because they aren't quite as big here as the other three and as such I'm not familiar with their eating habits)


From that very same Wikipedia article:

Sounds like persistently belittling, demeaning and insulting your veggo "friends" to me.

Oh look, someone wrote an article about exactly this (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/02/10/verbally-abusing-your-vegan-friends-isnt-edgy-its-just-being-a-bully/).

Also, as I already alluded to, tying a person's masculinity to their diet in a derogatory and sexist manner is its own bundle of douchey.

At best, this is all being an [buttface]. That's not really a great best-case scenario.

I'm sure that the author of that Article also calls out her fellow Vegans if they say to (or shout at) someone enjoying a meatball sub: "Meat is Murder". I hope that she complains to vegans who are protesting Butchers, people who pour their heart into what they do, that what these vegans are doing is supremely nasty.

Don't get me wrong, if someone considers a joke bullying, you don't repeat it and similar jokes (this is of course provided that this person doesn't make jokes about someone else his weakness/soft spot), but you must be consistent in this. If you don't want that Vegans are called less masculine because it is derogatory then you must also tell the Vegans to not say "meat is murder" because it is both deragotary and criminal slander (false accusing someone of murder). Obviously the OP isn't someone who tells his friends things like "You're abusing animals" but I felt this was as a good a place as any to establish the ground rules

Non-Vegans won't make "you're less masculine" jokes anymore and equally vegans won't slander the meat-eaters anymore. If we can all agree to this behaviour we would all live in a much happier world.

[Serpentine]

The latter. I guess the countryside and village life just makes it hard to be a zealout. Jews, Christians and Muslims a like here eat what is available/offered/served (Though I guess that isn't saying much about Christians, they famously eat everything). (I left out Hindus because they aren't quite as big here as the other three and as such I'm not familiar with their eating habits)



I'm sure that the author of that Article also calls out her fellow Vegans if they say to (or shout at) someone enjoying a meatball sub: "Meat is Murder". I hope that she complains to vegans who are protesting Butchers, people who pour their heart into what they do, that what these vegans are doing is supremely nasty.

Don't get me wrong, if someone considers a joke bullying, you don't repeat it and similar jokes (this is of course provided that this person doesn't make jokes about someone else his weakness/soft spot), but you must be consistent in this. If you don't want that Vegans are called less masculine because it is derogatory then you must also tell the Vegans to not say "meat is murder" because it is both deragotary and criminal slander (false accusing someone of murder). Obviously the OP isn't someone who tells his friends things like "You're abusing animals" but I felt this was as a good a place as any to establish the ground rules

Non-Vegans won't make "you're less masculine" jokes anymore and equally vegans won't slander the meat-eaters anymore. If we can all agree to this behaviour we would all live in a much happier world.
Hey, guess what: I do also do those things. Even right here in this thread.
If someone's a putz, I treat them like the putz they are. But say there's a person A who is part of category X, and in my experience a lot of people from category X are putzes, but thus far person A has not been a putz, I don't treat person A like a putz, because they're not a putz and treating someone who's not a putz like a putz is a putz thing to do.

[A.A.King]

Hey, guess what: I do also do those things. Even right here in this thread.
If someone's a putz, I treat them like the putz they are. But say there's a person A who is part of category X, and in my experience a lot of people from category X are putzes, but thus far person A has not been a putz, I don't treat person A like a putz, because they're not a putz and treating someone who's not a putz like a putz is a putz thing to do.

I know, so far you seem like a great person, that's why I said "The person who wrote the article". (In case I wasn't clear, I meant the girl who wrote what you linked rather than you). She seemed to make some fair points in her article, but reading some of her other stuff she doesn't seem to apply her standards of "how people should behave towards other people" towards her fellow vegans (which I think is hypocritical).

So yeah, I wasn't talking about you. :)

[Kalmageddon]

It seems that in a few posts, the argument that one could be forced to eat animal products for economic reasons has come up. Since when is meat or animal products cheaper than vegetables?
Could it be that when you are thinking about a vegan diet you are thinking about soy milk and those super expensive meat surrogates? Both of which are hardly necessary.
In fact the main reason for why I adopted a vegan diet when at home is that it is far cheaper to buy vegetables and rice than meat.

[Red Fel]

I grew up in a community where people of a certain religious persuasion (which we need not discuss in detail) endured certain dietary restrictions. As such, I grew accustomed to the idea that certain people could only eat the vegetarian option (or in some cases, fish) when we went out.

It should be no surprise to most here that I am, with very few exceptions, almost entirely carnivorous. I generally will not eat it unless it has a face and/or a mother. If it bleeds, I can cook it. I eat the meats. I think I've made my point.

That said, I've been around, and gotten used to, people with a variety of dietary restrictions for a variety of reasons. I know a wide assortment of religious dietary restrictions. I'm familiar with a number of medical restrictions, including celiac, diabetes, and various allergies and sensitivities. And I'm familiar with diets people assume for general health issues, such as weight concerns, pre-diabetic concerns, digestive health, or even dental health.

So as a general rule, if somebody offhandedly remarks, "I can't/won't eat X," and leaves it at that, so do I. I won't judge their decision unless they are visibly ill (e.g. someone looking like a barely-animated skeleton eating a single stalk of celery) or clearly poisoning themselves (e.g. someone who takes a small dose of ipecac with every meal so they don't have to keep it down). If somebody eats a particular way, that's fine.

Until and unless these person-faced things decide to lecture me.

If you tell me about how you only eat foods that are unprocessed, like primitive man used to, because that way to eat is healthier, I will look down on you and laugh, because that is junk science. If you tell me you avoid gluten, despite having no medical sensitivities whatsoever, because it's clearly poison, I will mock you ruthlessly for your inability to comprehend proteins.

And for the record, I don't believe in Vegans. They don't exist. I think that science has conclusively established that Vega is incapable of supporting life, and even if it was, there is no feasible way for it to arrive on this planet. You are not Vegan, you are human, stop that. I will respect your decision not to eat things made from animals or animal-byproducts. I will not respect your decision to explain this decision to me at length. I will not eat your cake made from beans.

My policy is very simple. If you have a diet, whatever it may be, I don't need to hear about it. You eat your tomato-avocado wrap and I will eat my steak sandwich and we won't say anything because our mouths are full and that's rude seriously you guys.


It seems that in a few posts, the argument that one could be forced to eat animal products for economic reasons has come up. Since when is meat or animal products cheaper than vegetables?
Could it be that when you are thinking about a vegan diet you are thinking about soy milk and those super expensive meat surrogates? Both of which are hardly necessary.
In fact the main reason for why I adopted a vegan diet when at home is that it is far cheaper to buy vegetables and rice than meat.

Actually, while healthy eating may not be more expensive in terms of money, it's frequently more expensive in terms of time. Not everyone is able to prepare a fresh salad, or a hearty soup, for a given meal. Not everyone can spare the time or attention to make something that doesn't pop out of the microwave, or that you can't get from a drive-through on the way home. Some people need the convenience of the quick meal, which is frequently high in sodium and low in various valuable nutrients.

Do you have any idea how much I would love to grill a perfect, tender steak every night? With a nice glaze and a bit of garlic, with the fat trimmed so it's nice and lean? Perhaps with a side of crisply chipped potatoes? Guess what I don't have the time to do? Heck, I can barely spend the attention to cook five-minute rice on the stove some nights.

Money isn't the only concern, is the point. And frequently, those who have time concerns are those who suffer money concerns, for the same reasons.

[Ceaon]

Why mock people, though? What does anyone gain from that? Why not discuss it politely showing sources, or ignore it all together?

Also, sucks about your time constraints. I can indeed admit that cooking for a specific diet can be more time consuming both in the supermarket and in the kitchen.

[Ruslan]

I have been a vegetarian for a good number of years. My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint. For reference, I live in an urban area in the Netherlands, though I have visited other European countries and Canada for extended periods and I noticed similar reactions as the ones described below.

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

On many message boards, it gets even worse. Though on second thought, let's ignore that for now.

If people have questions about my being a vegetarian, I always answer them, but I never start the discussion. Well, okay, I guess I am starting it now.

Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.

I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)
2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asked/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?
3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?
It is possible, although not necessary applicable in this case, that they're not vexed at the message, but at the self-righteous and smug way in which the message is delivered. It's impossible to judge on a message board with no access to tone and context, of course, but it's possible.

[Vinyadan]

Interesting points. Would you say it is hypocritical of me not to end my posts with something like "save the earth, decrease animal husbandry!" (but, well, catchier) because that is my personal belief and ideal? Am I a hypocrit for not trying to convert others to lessen their meat consumption, if only for a day a week?

And I think that is the reason it is a lifestyle. Only very few vegetarians dont eat meat because they don't like it or are allergic. They often have a reason and have made a personal, conscious decision to (continue to) stop eating it.

Save the animals! Destroy Carthago!



On the one hand, it's never much fun getting preached to. It points out your own flaws, it makes the preacher seem arrogant, etc.
On the other hand, if someone truly believes that eating meat is murder, it'd be quite hypocritical if they didn't try to stop me from doing it. If you believe I am murdering someone, you better not sit idly by.
Or, at least, I think mankind would be better off if nobody sat idly by while they believed murders were happening.


I see ethic vegetarianism as sort of impossible. I mean, it's not really impossible, but it depends on how it is done, and why. If it's the "footprint" deal, I can roll with that: it's a work in progress. If it's "all animals are as worthy of life as a human being and killing an animal is as bad as killing a human", then I have bad news: do you ever travel? Do you travel by car or by train? Travelling by train helps nature! But have you ever taken a look at a train window shield after it has travelled? Now, if those dead flies were as worthy of life as a human, why did you accept to travel that way? Don't you understand that your train kills tens, hundreds at every hour? I don't see myself as much of a philanthrope, but I sure would never travel with a means of transport that kills tens of people while I am in it. Which is all fast transportation.

Not to say anything about the this kind of vegetarians or vegans having omnivorous or carnivorous pets, that gets weird really fast if you think about it.

There are a few people who are very serious and consequent about it (the Jainas come to mind), but they aren't that many.

[Red Fel]

Why mock people, though? What does anyone gain from that? Why not discuss it politely showing sources, or ignore it all together?

We haven't met, have we? I'm Evil.

I mock people for two reasons. One, I enjoy it. As mentioned, Evil. Two, they give me an excuse. If you're not going to be in my face, I have no excuse, but as soon as you try to tell me why it's so important that you do this, I exercise my Me-given right to make you cry like a small child.

When it comes to people who make decisions based on fads or junk science, I've tried polite discourse. Not only is it unsatisfying, but it's frequently futile - people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of facts. Similarly, when people preach at me - as opposed to talking with me - they generally don't care what I have to say. They're speaking to hear themselves, not to exchange ideas. So I've found that the best way to light up the dark midnight of human ignorance is by burning bridges.

It rids me of annoying sub-persons, and amuses me at the same time. Win-win.


Also, sucks about your time constraints. I can indeed admit that cooking for a specific diet can be more time consuming both in the supermarket and in the kitchen.

S'trewth. Nor am I unique in having time constraints. Energy, too; I get home from work, and as much as I might want to cook up some teriyaki chicken, I just don't want to.

Eating well is hard.

[Ceaon]

We haven't met, have we? I'm Evil.

Ah, I see. I'll take it as a compliment that we disagree then 😉

[Red Fel]

Ah, I see. I'll take it as a compliment that we disagree then 😉

As well you should. Instead, I'd suggest worrying when we agree. :smallamused:

[Ceaon]

As well you should. Instead, I'd suggest worrying when we agree. :smallamused:

I agr-

Oh, fiddlesticks.

[Bohandas]

From that very same Wikipedia article:


Sounds like persistently belittling, demeaning and insulting your veggo "friends" to me.

Oh look, someone wrote an article about exactly this (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/02/10/verbally-abusing-your-vegan-friends-isnt-edgy-its-just-being-a-bully/).

Also, as I already alluded to, tying a person's masculinity to their diet in a derogatory and sexist manner is its own bundle of douchey.

At best, this is all being an [buttface]. That's not really a great best-case scenario.

I've gotta say, with the exception of the fourth paragraph, that article comes off as extremely self-righteous, whiny, and censorious. The article linked to within the linked article is even more self-righteous, and both demonstrates veganism threat to those who don't ascribe to their beliefs (it seems to want to ban meat) and also digresses briefly into health food woo-woo, because vitamin and mineral deficiencies are apparently part of "optimum health".

[Red Fel]

I agr-

Oh, fiddlesticks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/wade_curt/1308647301761.jpg


I've gotta say, with the exception of the fourth paragraph, that article comes off as extremely self-righteous, whiny, and censorious. The article linked to within the linked article is even more self-righteous, and both demonstrates veganism threat to those who don't ascribe to their beliefs (it seems to want to ban meat) and also digresses briefly into health food woo-woo, because vitamin and mineral deficiencies are apparently part of "optimum health".

Inclined to agree with this. Is it nice to jab your friends about something that obviously bothers them? No. But it's a far cry from the comments in the opening paragraph ("That's a pig for eating!") and the author's inference in the second paragraph ("I couldn’t care less about the suffering the pig went through. I realize that you care deeply about something, and so I’ve decided to degrade and embarrass you."), and an even further one from there to the anecdotal comments in the third paragraph ("I have been told that vegans should go to an island to die,"). Now, admittedly, if the writer of that article spends a lot of time around people who attempt to sneak taboo into her food and laugh at her, then she spends a lot of time around garbage people and needs to redefine "friend," but by the same token, if she equates the first parenthetical (a statement that an animal looks tasty) with the second (a statement of intent to harass) and the third (a literal desire for her death), a lot of the problems are also hers.

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between somebody expressing an opinion on food and somebody wishing for your death, you have a problem. That's not to say they're not jerks, but their issues don't negate yours.

The article goes on to be precisely preachy. In an almost literal sense. When she gets to the part about the "hideous cross we carry around," it's gone into bizzaro world. Again, it's not to say that people aren't getting teased or harassed over this, they are. But the language of the article amounts to a level of entitlement that borders on shocking, and I say this as somebody who has worked with millennials and boomers alike. "It's so hard, and nobody understands me," is a sentiment that I find repulsive on a personal level. As somebody who has seen actual discrimination and bullying firsthand, hearing somebody lament the cruelty of the world that teases them for hugging pigs instead of eating them makes me genuinely livid.

I think I'll not read the article that it links, just to be safe from the aneurysm.

[Crow]

We're up to five pages about this stuff now. That is why people get annoyed by vegetarians. I've been on some pretty restrictive diets at times. You do what you have to do. Going to a friend's house and they're cooking stuff you can't have; eat a little something beforehand, and while you're there, eat what you can. Going to a restaurant; same deal. Having friends over; make it a pot luck.

It's just not that difficult at all. I never had to tell anyone what my dietary preferences were. It just never came up; because I never made myself a bother.

[CozJa]

Why mock people, though? What does anyone gain from that? Why not discuss it politely showing sources, or ignore it all together?


Well, to be honest, mocking people is fun. Especially in two cases:
1) when they are stupid enough to don't understand that they are being mocked
2) when they know how to answer back :smallbiggrin:

But, again, not counting those that are part of 1, those that are part of 2 are generally going to be friends, and it is supposed that you know how and when mock them, unless they may not be very good friends. :smallwink:



We haven't met, have we? I'm Evil.

I mock people for two reasons. One, I enjoy it. As mentioned, Evil. Two, they give me an excuse. If you're not going to be in my face, I have no excuse, but as soon as you try to tell me why it's so important that you do this, I exercise my Me-given right to make you cry like a small child.

Hey, you seem a nice fella to talk with! :smalltongue:


When it comes to people who make decisions based on fads or junk science, I've tried polite discourse. Not only is it unsatisfying, but it's frequently futile - people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of facts. Similarly, when people preach at me - as opposed to talking with me - they generally don't care what I have to say. They're speaking to hear themselves, not to exchange ideas. So I've found that the best way to light up the dark midnight of human ignorance is by burning bridges.

It rids me of annoying sub-persons, and amuses me at the same time. Win-win.

Many times, that's true: I rarely find people that doesn't know what they are talking about and desires to know what they are talking about. In general, thinking to know something is considered better to actually knowing something

[Sithrak]

Sanctimonious

adjective
1.
making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness

Know the meaning of the words you use.Sanctimonious

adjective

making a show of being morally superior to other people

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

Sanctimony

noun

pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

(Random House Dictionary)

Knowing the meaning of words requires knowing more than a single dictionary definition. It also means understanding ways that the word is actually used in the language and the different connotations it may have. Dictionaries, after all, are not prescriptive. Long story short, "sanctimonious" does not necessarily have anything to do with hypocrisy. (Yes, I understand that the post you were responding to didn't make that fine a distinction, but that's no excuse for you not doing so either.)

[WarKitty]

We're up to five pages about this stuff now. That is why people get annoyed by vegetarians. I've been on some pretty restrictive diets at times. You do what you have to do. Going to a friend's house and they're cooking stuff you can't have; eat a little something beforehand, and while you're there, eat what you can. Going to a restaurant; same deal. Having friends over; make it a pot luck.

It's just not that difficult at all. I never had to tell anyone what my dietary preferences were. It just never came up; because I never made myself a bother.

Eh, it's not really rude to tell someone once why you aren't eating something. If I went out of my way to fix food for my friend, and then they didn't eat it and I found out that they were on <<insert diet here>>, I'd be kind of annoyed. Because guess what? I'd have happily figured out something they could eat or otherwise worked with them to make some arrangements. Instead I fixed all this food for someone who can't eat it. Same thing with going out to eat - I'd much rather my friends tell me what their dietary preferences are and we can go somewhere that everyone can eat.

I mean, don't make a big deal out of it, and offer to bring something. But there's nothing wrong if someone invites you to dinner with saying "Oh by the way I'm a vegetarian/celiac/whatever, would you like me to bring something?"

[Crow]

Eh, it's not really rude to tell someone once why you aren't eating something. If I went out of my way to fix food for my friend, and then they didn't eat it and I found out that they were on <<insert diet here>>, I'd be kind of annoyed. Because guess what? I'd have happily figured out something they could eat or otherwise worked with them to make some arrangements. Instead I fixed all this food for someone who can't eat it. Same thing with going out to eat - I'd much rather my friends tell me what their dietary preferences are and we can go somewhere that everyone can eat.

I mean, don't make a big deal out of it, and offer to bring something. But there's nothing wrong if someone invites you to dinner with saying "Oh by the way I'm a vegetarian/celiac/whatever, would you like me to bring something?"

Well I'm not going to be disappointed if they load up on side dishes and skip the meat. That's their thing. Nothing to be butthurt about.

If you're eating just the two or even three of you, that is one thing. Besides most friends are already aware of their friends' dietary preferences if they're vegan or something. I am talking about situations where a number of friends are going to be over or going out. Especially situations where it can be expected that the host is preparing a lot of food to begin with. By all means bring your own; just don't expect them to cook you a special dish. With restaurants, it's pretty lame to be restricted to one or two restaurants (if you live in a small town like I do), because one of 8 friends chose a restrictive diet.

Personally, if I went to someone's house, I would always try at least a little bit of whatever they made. My turning it down isn't going to unkill or unprepare that food that they made for 6 other people anyways. Granted, this isn't a vegetarian thing, but a people on diets thing, so it isn't special to veggies. Just stop being a tool, and try some of that meal your friend worked hard to make.

[Razade]

Sanctimonious

adjective

making a show of being morally superior to other people

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

Sanctimony

noun

pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

(Random House Dictionary)

Knowing the meaning of words requires knowing more than a single dictionary definition. It also means understanding ways that the word is actually used in the language and the different connotations it may have. Dictionaries, after all, are not prescriptive. Long story short, "sanctimonious" does not necessarily have anything to do with hypocrisy. (Yes, I understand that the post you were responding to didn't make that fine a distinction, but that's no excuse for you not doing so either.)

Honestly I wasn't going to take the time to respond to Marrying since it was a few pages after that I saw their post. I didn't feel like saying "Words have multiple meanings" because if someone is going to chide you on not knowing how to use a word they should probably understand that words have multiple uses. And that quoting an unsourced dictionary isn't proof of their claim. I could have been more clear and said "I wasn't using the word that way" but I really didn't feel I needed to do that either considering...the rest of my post.

Thanks for moming for me though. :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Keltest]

Well I'm not going to be disappointed if they load up on side dishes and skip the meat. That's their thing. Nothing to be butthurt about.

If you're eating just the two or even three of you, that is one thing. Besides most friends are already aware of their friends' dietary preferences if their vegan or something. I am talking about situations where a number of friends are going to be over or going out. Especially situations where it can be expected that the host is preparing a lot of food to begin with. With restaurants, it's pretty lame to be restricted to one or two restaurants (if you live in a small town like I do), because one of 8 friends chose a restrictive diet.

Personally, if I went to someone's house, I would always try at least a little bit of whatever they made. My turning it down isn't going to unkill or unprepare that food that they made for 6 other people anyways. Granted, this isn't a vegetarian thing, but a people on diets thing, so it isn't special to veggies. Just stop being a tool, and try some of that meal your friend worked hard to make.

I think in this case the correct way to not be a tool is to not accept the invitation in the first place, or otherwise indicate that youre coming for the socializing, but not the food. Assuming theres an unreasonable level of accommodation necessary to find a place/thing you can eat, just tell people ahead of time that you wont be eating because of reasons, that is isn't personal and that you still intend to socialize. Alternatively, don't go so the others don't have to worry about you. In a social gathering like that, the actual contents of your plate is generally not important so long as everyone is enjoying themselves.

[Ceaon]

Honestly I wasn't going to take the time to respond to Marrying since it was a few pages after that I saw their post. I didn't feel like saying "Words have multiple meanings" because if someone is going to chide you on not knowing how to use a word they should probably understand that words have multiple uses. And that quoting an unsourced dictionary isn't proof of their claim. I could have been more clear and said "I wasn't using the word that way" but I really didn't feel I needed to do that either considering...the rest of my post.

Thanks for moming for me though. :smallwink::smalltongue:

Seeing that you are back, Razade, is it possible that you answer my question? What exactly in my first post was generalizing to you?

[Red Fel]

I think in this case the correct way to not be a tool is to not accept the invitation in the first place, or otherwise indicate that youre coming for the socializing, but not the food. Assuming theres an unreasonable level of accommodation necessary to find a place/thing you can eat, just tell people ahead of time that you wont be eating because of reasons, that is isn't personal and that you still intend to socialize. Alternatively, don't go so the others don't have to worry about you. In a social gathering like that, the actual contents of your plate is generally not important so long as everyone is enjoying themselves.

This. I mean, I'm mostly antisocial to begin with, and if given a choice would turn down any invitation I receive, but I still go on occasion when friends invite me. And for some inexplicable reason, I have a lot of friends who make fish.

Seriously, ew. That's not a dietary restriction, it's just an ew. Fish are ew.

And you know what I do when I show up? Pour myself a drink, smile, laugh, chat, and if offered fish, say, "No, thanks, I'm good." The end. If I'm particularly hungry, I may stop by fast food on the way home, but nobody needs to hear about it.

Occasionally, someone will push me on it. "You sure you don't want? It's really good." When "No, thanks, I'm good," doesn't work, I switch to, "I'm not a fan of fish, thanks." And if they're not horrible garbage-people, they leave it there, and so do I.

Again, that's just personal taste, not dietary restrictions. But dietary restrictions should work the same way - unless you can't even be in the same room as the food, (and there are times when that's understandable, like if you have an incredibly severe allergy) you can simply say, "No, thanks," and if your friends aren't garbage-people, they will leave it there, and so can you.

There is no reason that it needs to become a conversation, is the point.

[Crow]

This. I mean, I'm mostly antisocial to begin with, and if given a choice would turn down any invitation I receive, but I still go on occasion when friends invite me. And for some inexplicable reason, I have a lot of friends who make fish.

Seriously, ew. That's not a dietary restriction, it's just an ew. Fish are ew.

And you know what I do when I show up? Pour myself a drink, smile, laugh, chat, and if offered fish, say, "No, thanks, I'm good." The end. If I'm particularly hungry, I may stop by fast food on the way home, but nobody needs to hear about it.

Occasionally, someone will push me on it. "You sure you don't want? It's really good." When "No, thanks, I'm good," doesn't work, I switch to, "I'm not a fan of fish, thanks." And if they're not horrible garbage-people, they leave it there, and so do I.

Again, that's just personal taste, not dietary restrictions. But dietary restrictions should work the same way - unless you can't even be in the same room as the food, (and there are times when that's understandable, like if you have an incredibly severe allergy) you can simply say, "No, thanks," and if your friends aren't garbage-people, they will leave it there, and so can you.

There is no reason that it needs to become a conversation, is the point.

Pretty much this. Easy easy. Though as I said, I at least try some of whatever that thing I don't particularly want is; but it's no problem if you don't...for most people.

[Flickerdart]

Fish are ew.
Sir, you sadden me deeply. Though from your description of your five-minute-rice cuisine, I hazard to guess that you just haven't ever had it properly prepared (or possibly of an acceptable freshness).

I eat everything, which is great, because whenever my friends invite me to the newest bamboo-and-tofu establishment, I'm happy enough to go along and order something vaguely resembling food.

[Tyndmyr]

I have been a vegetarian for a good number of years. My main reason for this has been to decrease my ecological footprint. For reference, I live in an urban area in the Netherlands, though I have visited other European countries and Canada for extended periods and I noticed similar reactions as the ones described below.

When my diet comes up, for instance in restaurants with no vegetarian choices or when someone else cooks for me, reactions to it vary from "Ugh... fine..." to an interested "Why?", from an aggressive or dismissive "It's not healthy you know" to a uninterested but positive "Good for you", and from some joking and implying I am not a real man to outright disgust.

On many message boards, it gets even worse. Though on second thought, let's ignore that for now.

If people have questions about my being a vegetarian, I always answer them, but I never start the discussion. Well, okay, I guess I am starting it now.

Currently, I am trying a vegan diet for a month. Again to decrease my indirect impact on the environment. I have noticed that the above reactions have turned more negative.

I have three questions:
1. Why do you guys think many people react so strongly to someone being a vegan or vegetarian (or probably pescetarian for that matter, though I have no experience with that?)
2. Any tips on how to present myself to others when asked/attacked on my diet? How to respond to jokes and how to decrease tension?
3. When you hear someone is a vegetarian or vegan, what is the first reason you think of that they do so?

Probably because it's been brought up. If everyone's eager to hit the wings joint, and someone realizes "oh right, so and so is a vegetarian", that's pretty much always a downer. It's telling people they can't do the thing they want to do. Eating is a huge social thing, and restricting that can be socially awkward.

It's unlikely that anyone actually cares what you order. I mean, people who eat meat sometimes order things that happen to not contain it, and nobody really cares about that, do they?

It comes up when you have the need to tell others. Leaving aside possible sanctimony(which, frankly, any sort of moral reasoning for doing so is going to come across as), you're still reminding folks of restrictions you're imposing on eating with them. Particularly if they are cooking for you or you're saying you can't eat out there, it sounds like you imposing your morals on them. This is wildly unpopular.

Even merely reminding people of prior such experiences is likely to get snark.

I would generally suggest that you eat what you like(and is healthy), but not to talk about it overly much, and particularly not get into justifying your choices if at all possible. Keeping it light and in the background as much as possible is easier.

There seems to be a significant range in vegetarian, from people who are happy to go anywhere, and will simply order whatever is available, to that guy in my office who can't abide 90% of the places out there(and here, basically everything has a no meat option), and will talk about how offputting cooking meat is. The former will generally be more socially accepted, even if they unfortunately remind folks of the latter.

It's also super annoying when I try to organize an office dinner, and have to account for half a dozen different strong preferences, allergies(some of which are likely the former, misphrased as this to emphasize them, but some of which are legitimate, so they must be taken into account), and so on. Eventually, you just stop trying to make everyone happy, and go out to grab whatever with the people who are easy to socialize with. None of those things are necessarily bad, save perhaps the lying about allergies, but the net effect is a great degree of hassle and conflict, and in the end, most people would just rather not have those things.



I do wonder why vegetarianism without reason is more acceptable than vegetarianism with a reason (a scientifically backed reason, even). I always thought being open and sharing information is the first step to mutual understanding.

It is. However, understanding is not the same as pleasant. If I believe a person to be extremely ugly, and immediately inform them of this, well...they now understand me just fine. But they probably won't like me for it.

Saying "but it's TRUE" will not help. Getting other people to agree with you will not help.

This is simply how humans work. Little white lies are what grease the wheels of human interaction.



In my mind this is really close to the saying "the reaction to feminist articles justify feminism". If there wasn't a problem with eating as much meat as it is considered normal in the western world, why would people get so aggressive about it?

The fact that people react to you aggressively does not make you right. Or wrong, really. People react aggressively to all kinds of things, many of which are perfectly valid things to be upset over, and many of which are not.

One could use this chain of logic to justify being a jerk in many ways(and some people do!). Making other people upset is not a good way to measure your accomplishments.



I'm afraid that my own way of doing it - if you have a moral objection, that trumps a preferential objection - is perfectly consistent, and to expect someone to do something which they think is essentially tantamount to complicity in something equivalent to murder in order to satisfy your desires is ridiculous. To say that my morality is ever less than your whimsical wants is freaking insane.

You must keep in mind that both of these things are subjective. The vegetarian may see it as a moral issue. The meat eater does not. These are both opinions, and telling them that you regard them as you would a murderer is...unlikely to be taken well. It just isn't.

It is usually described as "dietary preference", because folks have all kinds of reasons for what they prefer, and while they may not understand your perspective, you're certainly not taking much effort to understand theirs, and seem offended at even being asked to do so. So, yeah, conflict will ensue.


I think it is insane to treat non-human things as humans. A cow technically feels pain because it has nerve endings, but it doesn't feel pain the way a human does. A cow doesn't know it is going to die, hell, a cow didn't even know it was a live in the first place. Also: is having nerve endings your only criteria for not eating something? I mean, you're probably perfectly willing to eat fruit and vegetables, which are still a thing's offspring. Vegetables are also a live, they have a natural life cycle which is cut short by the farmer. Why do those lives not matter? Is it really only because they lack the nervous system to feel pain?

Oh, plants totally feel pain.

Focusing on the lack of a neural system is animal-centric. When one leaf is damaged, and signals are sent, and the whole plant reacts, it's not really very different. Neural systems are only one way to convey information, and there are others.

It's just that, as things get less and less human-like, it's harder for us to recognize pain. This is true even in the animal kingdom. Any of us will likely recognize pain in a dog, but may not understand how to recognize pain in a snail.

And anyways, it's not as if endless small animals aren't killed in the harvesting of commercial crops. I mean, cows die pretty quick. Death from pesticides is slow and painful. Having grown up on a farm, I have a certain difficulty understanding the perspective of people who have clearly not, and who rely on appeals to emotion. If it's murder, at best, you're complicit in somewhat less murder of somewhat fewer things further down the food chain, maybe. Good for you, I guess?



There is no reason that it needs to become a conversation, is the point.

I probably should have read to the end of the thread before beginning to build my reply, but yes, this.

[Bohandas]

Sanctimonious

adjective

making a show of being morally superior to other people

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

Sanctimony

noun

pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

(Random House Dictionary)

Knowing the meaning of words requires knowing more than a single dictionary definition. It also means understanding ways that the word is actually used in the language and the different connotations it may have. Dictionaries, after all, are not prescriptive. Long story short, "sanctimonious" does not necessarily have anything to do with hypocrisy. (Yes, I understand that the post you were responding to didn't make that fine a distinction, but that's no excuse for you not doing so either.)

Exactly. The way I've seen the word used and use it myself usually has more to do with shallowness and superficiality, even if the belief is genuinely held and practiced.

[Bohandas]

Oh, plants totally feel pain.

Focusing on the lack of a neural system is animal-centric. When one leaf is damaged, and signals are sent, and the whole plant reacts, it's not really very different. Neural systems are only one way to convey information, and there are others.

That's just a healing/immune response. Compare the reaction of a person with CIP or who is tripping on heroin and angel dust to being slashed with a knife or burned on a hot stove. Chemical signals are sent and metabolism is altered despite the lack of any pain.

[noparlpf]

I'm honestly amazed this thread didn't get locked between last night and now.


You quoted this bit. I still don't see it, unfortunately. Can you help me?

I'm not seeing it either. "Many people in this group" is pretty different from "everybody in this group." And specifying that it's not actually everybody in this group is kind of the opposite of generalising.


If you know something bothers someone and you continue to do it anyway, ESPECIALLY when they thing involves belittling, demeaning and mocking them, then that is bullying. Like, almost literally the definition.
And remember, moreover, that it isn't just one close friend doing this. It is, in OP's experience, almost every time it comes up, a constant barrage. And yes, veggos do get a whole, whole lot of that. I've come across plenty of Richardnoggin vegans, and that's what these non-vegs will be reacting to, but it doesn't make it a reasonable response in the face of a reasonable veggo who has not given any reason to warrant it.

I'm with Serpentine on this.

[cobaltstarfire]

Pretty much this. Easy easy. Though as I said, I at least try some of whatever that thing I don't particularly want is; but it's no problem if you don't...for most people.

I tend to have the opposite problem, where people are so eager to work with my dietary restrictions that it makes me feel super embarrassed and like I'm being a terrible inconvenience. Playing 20 questions about my digestive shortcomings also makes me feel really anxious, especially since my health problems are fairly generic. Irritable Bowels means that I have to avoid stuff that might ferment in my gut or are difficult to digest, which makes the list of things I need to avoid, or eat sparingly very long, and seemingly arbitrary, and differs from person to person. (Milk for example is a common trigger food for people with IBS, but I can usually drink it fine except for in the mornings)


I'm quite happy to just not eat meals with others, but I think for people who are more social, expecting them to just never go out as some have suggested is really...unfair?

[Keltest]

I'm quite happy to just not eat meals with others, but I think for people who are more social, expecting them to just never go out as some have suggested is really...unfair?

well, not to sound too callus, but at the end of the day, that's really your* problem. Youre making some lifestyle choices that prohibit you from doing the things you enjoy. its one thing if its a health issue, and I at least am generally willing to go further to accommodate you in that case, but if the only thing stopping you from eating something is you, then somewhere youre going to have to sacrifice something, whether it be your social time or your avoidance of whatever food you don't eat.

*"you" in this case being someone who both wants to be social and dislikes the activities that generally go along with that, not necessarily anyone in this thread.

[noparlpf]

If I actually respect somebody (let alone care about them) then I'm going to ask them what they want to get and not just pick the only no-vegetarian-options meat-only barbecue in town without asking them where they want to go. I've never had a problem finding a place to eat out with vegetarians.

If you're more invested in your burger than your friend, then that's kind of your problem.

(And it's not like many places that serve burgers don't have vegetarian options, so you'd kind of have to go out of your way to exclude them.)

[WarKitty]

well, not to sound too callus, but at the end of the day, that's really your* problem. Youre making some lifestyle choices that prohibit you from doing the things you enjoy. its one thing if its a health issue, and I at least am generally willing to go further to accommodate you in that case, but if the only thing stopping you from eating something is you, then somewhere youre going to have to sacrifice something, whether it be your social time or your avoidance of whatever food you don't eat.

*"you" in this case being someone who both wants to be social and dislikes the activities that generally go along with that, not necessarily anyone in this thread.

Complicating this is the fact that some people really do get pretty pushy if someone is going to a social event and not eating said social event's food. In theory it would be fine to just go and not eat food, but it's going to be very hard around most groups to not eat and not have it eventually come out that you're a vegetarian or whatever. And that opens you up to the negative responses again.

[Armaius]

I'm in a similar boat as the OP. I abstain from alcohol, so here's what I do - which I think could be readily adapted to vegetarianism. Basically, I just treat it like no big deal. I don't actively draw attention to it at all. If the topic does come up, I just play it like no big deal and explain that it's a personal lifestyle choice. I don't try to moralize or preach my lifestyle - I view that sort of thing as both obnoxious and rude. Usually, that's as far as the conversation goes because most of the people I've run across have been understanding. However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

If they REALLY continued to push (its never actually gone this far, by the way), I would simply say: "I don't tell you what to put in your body, so why do you get to tell me what to put in mine?" Followed by a mic drop and exit from the conversation. Because at that point it becomes clear that this hypothetical person isn't worth talking to. :smallwink:

[veti]

However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

If they REALLY continued to push (its never actually gone this far, by the way), I would simply say: "I don't tell you what to put in your body, so why do you get to tell me what to put in mine?" Followed by a mic drop and exit from the conversation. Because at that point it becomes clear that this hypothetical person isn't worth talking to. :smallwink:

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

[Keltest]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically mean it can't be questioned, even debated, quite civilly. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

When youre ignoring obvious hints that the other person does not want to talk about this, then yes, it is so bad. "This does not need to be a conversation" goes both ways. If you aren't going to preach to me about something I'm uninterested in listening about, i wont push you to talk about something you don't want to talk about.

[Ruslan]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?
Sometimes, a lack of direct answer clearly implies: "if I wanted to give a direct answer, I'd give it by now. Let's just talk about something else". Sometimes it's better for everyone just to be able to understand what the other party is saying. Yes, everything is askable, quizzable, questionable, etc. Doesn't necessarily mean asking, quizzing and questioning will lead to positive results. Sometimes, everyone is just better off by one person deciding not to exercise his unalienable right to ask questions, and just letting go.

[noparlpf]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

Bolded parts should answer your own question. If it has nothing to do with you, by your own admittance, then continuing to press somebody about it when they've already expressed that they don't want to go over it further (for whatever personal reasons, again, not your business what those reasons are) is actually pretty rude.

[Armaius]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

That depends on how your questioning is worded and the tone you take with me. If you're being aggressive/hostile about it, then yes - you'll get the above answer I mentioned and I will walk off. If you're acting legitimately curious/trying to understand me better, then we'll have a better time and I'll be pleased to elaborate more. Social cues are key.

But, as I said. I don't consider it that big of a deal and, at the end of the day, its my choice. I don't have to justify my decisions to anyone. If you're okay with it - great. If not - I don't care. It doesn't impact you at all.

[Knaight]

Complicating this is the fact that some people really do get pretty pushy if someone is going to a social event and not eating said social event's food. In theory it would be fine to just go and not eat food, but it's going to be very hard around most groups to not eat and not have it eventually come out that you're a vegetarian or whatever. And that opens you up to the negative responses again.


I'm in a similar boat as the OP. I abstain from alcohol, so here's what I do - which I think could be readily adapted to vegetarianism. Basically, I just treat it like no big deal. I don't actively draw attention to it at all. If the topic does come up, I just play it like no big deal and explain that it's a personal lifestyle choice. I don't try to moralize or preach my lifestyle - I view that sort of thing as both obnoxious and rude. Usually, that's as far as the conversation goes because most of the people I've run across have been understanding. However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

I was thinking of making this same comparison. I do drink, and while it's not heavy drinking by any stretch of the imagination it's not minimal either. I also don't push drinking on people - but I've seen it done and had to help push back more than once. The same sort of pre-emptive defensiveness exists in a lot of drinkers as does in a lot of omnivores, and it's obnoxious.

[Ceaon]

Lots of interesting responses.

We've discussed how to be a good guest and a good host, both as a someone with and someone without an uncommon diet.
We've also discussed whether making fun of someone is okay if they are different or have made uncommon lifestyle choices, and whether it is okay to make fun of someone if they don't like it. And we've discussed ways for me to respond to both sollicited and unsollucited responses to my diet.

Responses have been quite varied and thus helpful to me. I am glad to see many people say "I couldn't care less about your diet", and also people who say they would be interested in my reasoning, both responses I have no problem dealing with. Yet I've also seen some people who do, in fact, think that this small part of me, my diet, would prevent me from sharing a meal with them, either in their house or in a restaurant. I have also seen someone being more... let's call it assertive, when explaining and defending their choice of diet. And someone else who wondered whether NOT trying to convince others of your ideals might be hypocritical.

All in all, I think I have a lot to think about. I think my biggest hurdle is identifying how the person/group I am currently dealing with will react and changing my response to one that works for who I am addressing. I am, I would say, someone with an uncommon lifestyle choice who still want to socialize, and not just with others who've made the same choice.

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

[Socratov]

If I might add my 2 cp,

First I need to confess, I am leaning carnivorous, so take my points with grains of salt as you see fit. Various of my preferences have been expressed in this thread so I will not regugitate them and instead I will focus on some thoughts I had while reading this thread.

With that out of the way, what we are stumbling around here is a fascinating piece of group behaviour which still fascinates scientists. You see, for all our technologial advances and relatively huge brains we are still, for all intents and purposes animals. that means we have a weird sense of how one should behave. This sense probes us to, intending to maintain group cohesion, reject those who don't comply with group behaviour. And we are not the only species of animal who does this (remember the famous reserch about monkeys, the ladder and fruit on top of it?), but the species of animal who have created the most evidence of this effect.

Nowe I find this effect curious because ultimately, like genetic diversion, behavioral diversion should strenghten one's survival chances. If nobody does new things innovation and advancement should stop entirely. Yet we ostracize those who do different things.

Now, I am not a scientist, let alone a behavioral/neurophychology/biology scientist, but I do feel confident (or cheeky) enough to try a hypothesis: we judge behavior in its possible effect and upon that conclusion we reward or punish said behaviour. Rewarding will be done through praise the the awarding of status and by creating peer pressure within the group to perform similar behaviour, punishing of behaviour will be enacted by 'othering'. To strengthen intergroup bonds we treat others as less worthy, by applying the stamp of 'other' a group creates distance between the group and the 'othered' person(s). Convergent behaviour within the group will be improving group cohesion and thus rewarded, divergent behavior within the group will weaken group cohesion and will thus be punished.

So, here you find yourself enacting counter-group behaviour (i.e. self-imposing a dietary restriction that the group does not see as beneficial to group cohesion) and thus get punished for your behaviour (judgmental challenges of your motives of enacting your behaviour, resentment of your behaviour, and so on). The best part of this is the fact that this happens not consciously but instinctively. I don't think that your friends would heckly you with malice and intent, but rather as an instinctive reflex. (please note that I am not saying that this makes it good behaviour, just predictable).

Now as I see it you have 3 choices:


correct your behaviour to match that of the group again
abandon your current group and find (or form) a new group that matches your newly changed behaviour
persevere in your current behaviour and stay with your current group


1's consequences will be you being less able to diminish your ecological footprint and relenting to peer pressure. This will cost you your maslov self-expression points.
2's consequences will be losing social contact for a certain period of time (or indefinitely), not exactly fun if youcan't very quickly find replacements. You might get lonely
3's consequences will be enduring the insticitve heckling, though dependingon the group this might diminish over time and common ground may be established. Though this may take a lot of time and effort and possibly never happen. That is a risk you will have to gauge yourself.

Btw, as a Dutchie myself I can tell you that at least one social thing will be pared to you: nearly any place that serves meat or midnight snack (McD's, pizza, Shoarma/Kebab/Kapsalon) will serve something vegetarian as well. Even if it's only the fries: enacting in the same social behaviour as your peers, albeit according to your own norms, will make option 3 a lot easier. Good luck!

[Flickerdart]

remember the famous reserch about monkeys, the ladder and fruit on top of it?

Never happened (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu).

[Vinyadan]

Never happened (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu).

I like how there is an anthropology professor quoted in that page that has worked with hundreds of monkeys. I would have expected him to earn the title of monkeologist.

[Socratov]

Never happened (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu).
well, that'll teach me to beleive things I read on the internet...

I like how there is an anthropology professor quoted in that page that has worked with hundreds of monkeys. I would have expected him to earn the title of monkeologist.

Well, just make sure you don't have any apes between them ro they might get offended.

on a more serious note, would that not make a Simianologist? (simains being ape and ape related species IIRC)

[Liquor Box]

You are right. A better term would be verbal abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse).

Look, I disagree with you. You are defending your "right" to make others feel bad despite them telling you to stop, and that you feel you "give them a pass", as if you are the bigger person, when you do listen... it just baffles me. But I do not want to be drawn into an argument, so I will apologize that I am too sensitive for your taste, and hope that we can agree to move on.

I don't think I said any such thing.

I very clearly said from the outset that I think people have the right to be vegetarians, what you eat (like most things) is a matter of personal choice.

I do think that people who choose to be vegetarians are likely to be subject to ordinary banter in the same way as a person who wears an unusual shirt might be - that's just life, and as I have said I think people joking with each other in a friendly way is a good thing. I have also said that if a person were to tell me that he is insecure about a particular thing (like vegetarianism) and is sensitive to teasing about it, that I would probably refrain from taking the piss on that point.

[Liquor Box]

From that very same Wikipedia article:


Sounds like persistently belittling, demeaning and insulting your veggo "friends" to me.

Oh look, someone wrote an article about exactly this (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/02/10/verbally-abusing-your-vegan-friends-isnt-edgy-its-just-being-a-bully/).

Also, as I already alluded to, tying a person's masculinity to their diet in a derogatory and sexist manner is its own bundle of douchey.

At best, this is all being an [buttface]. That's not really a great best-case scenario.

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:

t is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.

What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

[Spojaz]

I'm a little late to this party, but I think the reason there is friction between vegetarians and the rest of us is because you end up representing a way we could be better but aren't. Just like with gym rats, conspicuous givers, those don't watch TV, are constantly posting travel pictures to facebook, or cook all of their own meals, being around a person who has improved themselves in one of the ways we could do but haven't is grating. Even if you don't intend to make us feel inferior, it's still there. Nobody is perfect, and most of the time we don't want to change or be reminded that change is possible.

[Liquor Box]

Lol @ eating meat to every meal and demanding that your host serves you meat. Not eating something and asking that specific thing to be left out of your food is abysmally different from demanding a specific ingredient in every meal.


I don't think there's really a meaningful difference (certainly not "abysmally different") at all here. Demanding meat is left out of every meal is essentially demanding that every meal is vegetarian (the only other option is fruit and I don't know that there are many fruit dishes considered a full meal). Admittedly I am assuming that the vegetarians also do not eat fish, and that may not be the case.

I don't really think you can demand your host include meat in your meals, any more than you can demand he include vegetables in your meal. As others have said hopefully the two of you know one another well enough to cater for each others food tastes, and if those are so non-compatible maybe you should not cook for one another.

[Liquor Box]

It seems that in a few posts, the argument that one could be forced to eat animal products for economic reasons has come up. Since when is meat or animal products cheaper than vegetables?
Could it be that when you are thinking about a vegan diet you are thinking about soy milk and those super expensive meat surrogates? Both of which are hardly necessary.
In fact the main reason for why I adopted a vegan diet when at home is that it is far cheaper to buy vegetables and rice than meat.

In terms of calories I expect you are right. But I understand (I'm not actually an expert) that chicken is close to the cheapest source of protein there is. During the global financial crisis in 2009 the price of chicken rose dramatically due to increased demand for chickens instead of more expensive protein sources.

[noparlpf]

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:


What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

I figure that if somebody says they don't like your "teasing" and you continue it, that counts as hostile intent (and arguably demonstration of power, even if it's only a little power; it shows that they can't stop you from doing it). Why would you intentionally do something somebody has told you they dislike if not out of hostile intent? :smallconfused:

"Mild teasing" is something both parties agree to. If one party feels that it's crossed the line from friendly ribbing to something they don't like, the party who continues to tease doesn't get to decide it's not actually bullying.

[Razade]

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:


What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

You don't understand Box. Any kind of teasing is bullying to a section of people. Mean words are mean words.

[Liquor Box]

I figure that if somebody says they don't like your "teasing" and you continue it, that counts as hostile intent (and arguably demonstration of power, even if it's only a little power; it shows that they can't stop you from doing it). Why would you intentionally do something somebody has told you they dislike if not out of hostile intent? :smallconfused:

"Mild teasing" is something both parties agree to. If one party feels that it's crossed the line from friendly ribbing to something they don't like, the party who continues to tease doesn't get to decide it's not actually bullying.

In the very post preceding the one you quoted I said this(which was a repetition of having said the same many times earlier):

"I have also said that if a person were to tell me that he is insecure about a particular thing (like vegetarianism) and is sensitive to teasing about it, that I would probably refrain [teasing] on that point."

Despite this, if a person did continue to tease a vegetarian (in a mild way) after the vegetarian saying the did not like it I still don't think this would amount to bullying, although it may be moderately unkind.

To answer your question about why someone would do something that another person doesn't like, I will endeavour to use this very thread as an example. People in this thread have said that they do not like others talking about vegetarianism (I think because they feel that vegetarianism is being shoved down their throat from an unfounded (in their view) moral standpoint). Yet people continue to discuss vegetarianism positively despite others indicating they dislike this. They do this because they want to discuss their views on vegetarianism and they do not think that someone (whose viewpoint they disagree with) saying "I don't like it" if sufficient to override their right and desire to continue discussing the topic. Likewise, if people were making negative comments about vegetarianism in a different setting they may not thing that their right and desire to do so should be overridden by one person saying "I agree with vegetarianism (and am one) so I don't like this discussion implying that vegetarians have negative characteristics".

I agree with you that there is a point at which negative (or teasing) comments about vegetarianism can become bullying. It's difficult to put your finger on precisely where that line is drawn though, and context (particularly the usual relationship between the two - I'm imagining friends who often wind each other up about quirks) is important.

[Vinyadan]

well, that'll teach me to beleive things I read on the internet...


Well, just make sure you don't have any apes between them ro they might get offended.

on a more serious note, would that not make a Simianologist? (simains being ape and ape related species IIRC)

I think yes, but simia is Latin, I don't know if it's the same word in Greek (usually you use Greek words with the -logy suffix because it's a Greek suffix). I guess it would be simiologist, Greek compunds often have a -o- linking pieces together (anthrop-o-logist, music-o-logist, herpet-o-logist, and so on.) Or pithekologist, pithekos is the Greek word for monkey. Australopithecus means southern ape.

[McBish]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.

[Crow]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.

I pretty much agree here. It is actually a hard case to make that human agriculture hasn't led to the extinction of more species than any other human cause. Not that ranching is much better in that respect.

As far as being ethical, I am in the position where I can buy my meat from local sellers who treat the animals in a humane and ethical manner. I can go out to their location and see the conditions that the animals live in. We buy meat from cows that range free on large stretches of land and graze naturally. Same with the other meats we purchase as well. We always try to buy from sources who provided the best possible life for the animals we eat.

It is hard for me to see how being a vegetarian for "ethical reasons" is in any way superior to eating animals who have been treated and raised in ethical and sustainable ways.

[Ruslan]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.
This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.

[Bohandas]

I'm a little late to this party, but I think the reason there is friction between vegetarians and the rest of us is because you end up representing a way we could be better but aren't. Just like with gym rats, conspicuous givers, those don't watch TV, are constantly posting travel pictures to facebook, or cook all of their own meals, being around a person who has improved themselves in one of the ways we could do but haven't is grating. Even if you don't intend to make us feel inferior, it's still there. Nobody is perfect, and most of the time we don't want to change or be reminded that change is possible.

I don't think any of those things are improvements except for the people who go to the gym and the gift givers.

Certainly the vegetarians and the no tv people aren't

[Razade]

This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.

What magic do you have, might I ask, where you can give this sort of answer? Because I know more than a few people who only eat the game they've killed personally. But apparently they don't exist because Ruslan on Giants in the Playground thinks he can make a point that people never get their meat from more ethical places than factory farms. Bravo, top notch argument you have there.

[Winter_Wolf]

This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.

You make me laugh. (In a good way.) But you're not wrong in that only half of our daily protein comes from deer family animals; the other half is salmon and a couple freshwater varieties of fish. Then again, I'm from rural Alaska and subsistence living is mandatory. Because any fool who thinks they can go vegan in my hometown finds themselves first completely broke in a month, then starving shortly after. If you don't believe me, that's cool. You'll only last as a vegetarian if neither fish nor eggs count as "meat". Not saying that to be argumentative, it's just a fact. Then again, $10 for a gallon of milk in my hometown and you're not getting fresh veggies in winter unless it's air freight. The cost of some bullets and gas or a net feeds your whole family for a whole Alaskan winter.

But we do love fresh veggies and fruit when we can get it. Even the nasty bruised stuff gets premium pricing. I saw my buddy's kids go at a basket of fresh fruit once; piranhas should be so fierce!

[Razade]

You'll only last as a vegetarian if neither fish nor eggs count as "meat". Not saying that to be argumentative, it's just a fact.

It's...not...plenty of Vegetarians and Vegans do just fine without eggs or fish.

[Crow]

This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.

I have a buddy in Alaska that gets all his meat from hunting. It's not all that uncommon in some places.


It's...not...plenty of Vegetarians and Vegans do just fine without eggs or fish.

What he means is that the things those people would need to maintain a healthy diet are just not available.

[Bohandas]

You'll only last as a vegetarian if neither fish nor eggs count as "meat".

I'm not sure why eggs would count as meat. The eggs you get at the supermarket are generally unfertilized; plus vegetarians traditionally tend to be left-leaning so not likely to care even if they are.

[Starwulf]

This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.

You obviously don't live in the country then, especially a poor country area. I know A LOT of people for whom 90% of the meat that they eat in a year, is solely deer, and I can even name two that are very close to me(well, my wife, it's her parents). Hell, my best friends freezer growing up was literally stuffed to the gils with deer meat, and they even hunted illegally throughout the year to keep that supply of deer meat up. They supplemented it with squirrel and rabbit as well. It was literally(this is 100% no exaggeration) only twice a year where they did NOT eat deer/rabbit/squirrel meat as their primary protein for meals, and that was Thanksgiving and Christmas(Turkey and Goose), and even then, both of those animals were raised by themselves, from hatchling to full grown size.

And yes, in this area Deer is 100% sustainable. Hell, there are so many deer this year, the county I live in has already stated they'll be adding additional hunting days AND issuing extra tags.

[Winter_Wolf]

It's...not...plenty of Vegetarians and Vegans do just fine without eggs or fish.

In my hometown. There is little fresh plant matter and you're fighting for a share of a very limited resource in the winter months. Because you're just not going to get alternatives to meat, unless you're so fabulously wealthy that you can afford all your food flown in during the winter. In which case you're probably going to be wintering somewhere a little warmer. At least that's what most people back home say they'd do with that much money.


I'm not sure why eggs would count as meat. The eggs you get at the supermarket are generally unfertilized; plus vegetarians traditionally tend to be left-leaning so not likely to care even if they are.

I'm fuzzy on the whole "level of vegetarian" thing. Fish eaters (autocorrect has fits when I try to write the other word), ovovegetarian, some other kinds I think, vegans... I tell ya, it doesn't come up often enough in my daily life to remember these words or gradations. I know of some who say milk is okay but eggs aren't.

[Ceaon]

I pretty much agree here. It is actually a hard case to make that human agriculture hasn't led to the extinction of more species than any other human cause. Not that ranching is much better in that respect.

As far as being ethical, I am in the position where I can buy my meat from local sellers who treat the animals in a humane and ethical manner. I can go out to their location and see the conditions that the animals live in. We buy meat from cows that range free on large stretches of land and graze naturally. Same with the other meats we purchase as well. We always try to buy from sources who provided the best possible life for the animals we eat.

It is hard for me to see how being a vegetarian for "ethical reasons" is in any way superior to eating animals who have been treated and raised in ethical and sustainable ways.

Oh, I agree. A vegetarian meal is not *always* better for the environment than a non-vegetarian meal, and certainly not in *every* respect. And perhaps it's not even always more friendly to the animals (though I haven't looked into this). Vegetarianism is not the only way I try to achieve my personal ideal of having a smaller footprint (I also recycle, I go by public transport, I buy stuff second hand, etc...). It's just the aspect most people seem to disagree most heavily and most viciously with.

I have read many sources that inform me that, on average, a vegetarian diet can greatly reduce your indirect water consumption, your stake in deforestation, your indirect emmission of some toxics and overuse of antibiotics and more, and I chose this path to influence *those* variables. That's an ethical/moral decision, though whether it is the right one and whether it'll work out as intended or even matter at all on a personal level, I am willing to debate. Please, show me sources that prove how I should go about my goal better, because if they exist I would want to read them. Really, I welcome more/better sources. And again, my choices do NOT make me better than anyone else.

What I still feel is a bit difficult is when someone says "I don't want to know about your diet", but then also make wrong assumptions about my motivations or lack information and claim I cannot possibly have a good reason or attack a strawman (or at least a different vegetarian than me), which seems hard to reply to if I am not allowed to share my reasoning. Should I just ignore it when this happens?

As for the argument that I am should stop talking because people don't like to read about vegetarianism, and that this is somehow equivalent to bullying or at least teasing others when they say no, I say: huh. It's easier to leave a topic than to walk away from a friend or someone else teasing in real life. Still, if someone directly asks me to stop talking now because they are hurt by what I am posting, I promise I'll leave. But I'd rather stay as you guys are making some excellent points all around.

[Crow]

Oh, I agree. A vegetarian meal is not *always* better for the environment than a non-vegetarian meal, and certainly not in *every* respect. And perhaps it's not even always more friendly to the animals (though I haven't looked into this). Vegetarianism is not the only way I try to achieve my personal ideal of having a smaller footprint (I also recycle, I go by public transport, I buy stuff second hand, etc...). It's just the aspect most people seem to disagree most heavily and most viciously with.

I have read many sources that inform me that, on average, a vegetarian diet can greatly reduce your indirect water consumption, your stake in deforestation, your indirect emmission of some toxics and overuse of antibiotics and more, and I chose this path to influence *those* variables. That's an ethical/moral decision, though whether it is the right one and whether it'll work out as intended or even matter at all on a personal level, I am willing to debate. Please, show me sources that prove how I should go about my goal better, because if they exist. Really, I welcome more/better sources. And again, my choices do NOT make me better than anyone else.

What I still feel is a bit difficult is when someone says "I don't want to know about your diet", but then also make wrong assumptions about my motivations or lack information and claim I cannot possibly have a good reason or attack a strawman (or at least a different vegetarian than me), which seems hard to reply to if I am not allowed to share my reasoning. Should I just ignore it when this happens?

As for the argument that I am should stop talking because people don't like to read about vegetarianism, and that this is somehow equivalent to bullying or at least teasing others when they say no, I say: huh. It's easier to leave a topic than to walk away from a friend or someone else teasing in real life. Still, if someone directly asks me to stop talking now because they are hurt by what I am posting, I promise I'll leave. But I'd rather stay as you guys are making some excellent points all around.

Is this all directed at me? You seem to have interpreted what I said as some sort of an attack on you? Is that the case here; or are you talking in general terms about other people?

As a side note; things get confusing when people conflate "ethical" and "environmentally friendly". I get why they do it; but it isn't very helpful when it comes to making your intentions clear.

[Ceaon]

Is this all directed at me? You seem to have interpreted what I said as some sort of an attack on you? Is that the case here; or are you talking in general terms about other people?

As a side note; things get confusing when people conflate "ethical" and "environmentally friendly". I get why they do it; but it isn't very helpful when it comes to making your intentions clear.

Oh, sorry! No, that's not all directed at you, just the first paragraph of me agreeing with you is.

Your point about the difference between ethical and environmentally friendly is a good one and I think you are right. It is better for me to say my choices are (attempting to be) environmentally friendly and not (necessarily) of the ethical kind.

[Crow]

Oh, sorry! No, that's not all directed at you, just the first paragraph of me agreeing with you is.

Your point about the difference between ethical and environmentally friendly is a good one and I think you are right. It is better for me to say my choices are (attempting to be) environmentally friendly and not (necessarily) of the ethical kind.

Okay, just checking!

[Socratov]

I think yes, but simia is Latin, I don't know if it's the same word in Greek (usually you use Greek words with the -logy suffix because it's a Greek suffix). I guess it would be simiologist, Greek compunds often have a -o- linking pieces together (anthrop-o-logist, music-o-logist, herpet-o-logist, and so on.) Or pithekologist, pithekos is the Greek word for monkey. Australopithecus means southern ape.

Hey, that's cool, I learned something today :smallcool:

[Vinyadan]

You make me laugh. (In a good way.) But you're not wrong in that only half of our daily protein comes from deer family animals; the other half is salmon and a couple freshwater varieties of fish. Then again, I'm from rural Alaska and subsistence living is mandatory. Because any fool who thinks they can go vegan in my hometown finds themselves first completely broke in a month, then starving shortly after. If you don't believe me, that's cool. You'll only last as a vegetarian if neither fish nor eggs count as "meat". Not saying that to be argumentative, it's just a fact. Then again, $10 for a gallon of milk in my hometown and you're not getting fresh veggies in winter unless it's air freight. The cost of some bullets and gas or a net feeds your whole family for a whole Alaskan winter.

But we do love fresh veggies and fruit when we can get it. Even the nasty bruised stuff gets premium pricing. I saw my buddy's kids go at a basket of fresh fruit once; piranhas should be so fierce!

This reminds me of the Inuit, who could survive because our body can create carbohydrates from huge amounts of flesh (gluconeogenesis). Inuit have very large livers probably as an effect of natural selection, since gluconeogenesis is made by the liver breaking down proteins. It's possible a non Inuit wouldn't fare that well on an Inuit diet (I guess that even in Alaska pasta and dough are stored and used to get carbs).


I'm not sure why eggs would count as meat. The eggs you get at the supermarket are generally unfertilized; plus vegetarians traditionally tend to be left-leaning so not likely to care even if they are.

Eggs are actually egg cells, animal cells. If you qualify "meat" as "animal cells", they count as meat. I personally qualify meat as piece of animal, and I don't qualify eggs as animals (only the embryo which rarely might be inside them). (I also am not a vegetarian).

About agriculture, in recent years changes in it have caused a 40% decrease in sparrows and an enormous decrease in goldfinches in Europe. Sparrows because extremely effective insecticides have left them almost without prey, and also because certain insecticides turn fields into a death trap for humans for the few days after which they have been sprayed, so I assume it's the same for birds, too. Goldfinches because they eat thistles that once grew in smaller areas which were left uncultivated. These areas now have disappeared because of the new organization of farming, while selective herbicides have made short work of thistles in cultivated areas.

[Murk]

About agriculture, in recent years changes in it have caused a 40% decrease in sparrows and an enormous decrease in goldfinches in Europe. Sparrows because extremely effective insecticides have left them almost without prey, and also because certain insecticides turn fields into a death trap for humans for the few days after which they have been sprayed, so I assume it's the same for birds, too. Goldfinches because they eat thistles that once grew in smaller areas which were left uncultivated. These areas now have disappeared because of the new organization of farming, while selective herbicides have made short work of thistles in cultivated areas.

On the other hand, there were probably this much sparrows and goldfinches to begin with because of small scale agriculture. Thistles and large fields filled with insects are pretty rare in wild nature: it's really a pioneer environment, which often only exist for a couple of years before turning into something else.
Early agriculture, though, was able to keep environments like that, with small crops without much overgrowth: perfect for birds like this.

I'm not sure (I haven't seen any research on it) but I can imagine there was a huge increase in sparrows and goldfinches the past two thousand years, only to decrease again due to more efficient agriculture.


That's nitpicking, though, because safe for some select species, agriculture has indeed harmed a lot of other species.

[Ceaon]

On the other hand, there were probably this much sparrows and goldfinches to begin with because of small scale agriculture. Thistles and large fields filled with insects are pretty rare in wild nature: it's really a pioneer environment, which often only exist for a couple of years before turning into something else.
Early agriculture, though, was able to keep environments like that, with small crops without much overgrowth: perfect for birds like this.

I'm not sure (I haven't seen any research on it) but I can imagine there was a huge increase in sparrows and goldfinches the past two thousand years, only to decrease again due to more efficient agriculture.


That's nitpicking, though, because safe for some select species, agriculture has indeed harmed a lot of other species.

A large proportion of agriculture is meant for cattle consumption, I believe [citation needed]. Your post really illustrates how hard it can be not to fall into the trap of exaggerating conservatism to the point of trying to keep a dynamic, changing world static (I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm saying your post illustrates both points well). As for your theory on the increase of sparrows, it's a very interesting point you make and it makes a lot of sense.

[BWR]

The reason my vegan friend avoids eggs is not because it is an animal product in itself, but because of animal suffering. The egg obviously doesn't feel anything but the chicken laying it does.

[Themrys]

I'm a little late to this party, but I think the reason there is friction between vegetarians and the rest of us is because you end up representing a way we could be better but aren't. Just like with gym rats, conspicuous givers, those don't watch TV, are constantly posting travel pictures to facebook, or cook all of their own meals, being around a person who has improved themselves in one of the ways we could do but haven't is grating. Even if you don't intend to make us feel inferior, it's still there. Nobody is perfect, and most of the time we don't want to change or be reminded that change is possible.

That's what I suspect, too.

Perhaps that's why I encounter relatively little hostility - I eat a rather unhealthy vegetarian diet, watch too much TV and don't go to the gym. Basically, I balance the vegetarianism out by being rather **** in other areas.

Interestingly, I have noticed a tendency that it is mostly men who have a problem with my vegetarian diet. Probably something to do with eating meat being considered manly or some ****. Certain men seem to feel a need to crack stupid jokes about my vegetarian diet. Women only want to know what I eat or don't eat so they can cook accordingly, it is men who don't even have to provide food for me who act most silly about it.

Edit: Yes, indeed, most cattle is fed with corn and other products of agriculture. Which is not only waste of food, but also leads to the gut bacteria being more dangerous to humans. (Bacteria that evolved in the gut of grass-fed cattle cannot survive the acid in human stomachs).
I try to get dairy products from grass-fed cattle, but it's expensive and not available in most stores.

[noparlpf]

The reason my vegan friend avoids eggs is not because it is an animal product in itself, but because of animal suffering. The egg obviously doesn't feel anything but the chicken laying it does.

It depends where you get them. Chickens produce eggs regularly (mainly unfertilised eggs, if they're not breeding) whether or not they're in captivity. My friend's family keeps chickens and sometimes they sell extra eggs at a local farmer's market stand.

That said, the overwhelming majority of supermarket eggs come from the mainstream agriculture industry, where chickens are definitely abused.

I might be the only person who made it through that food anthropology course without going vegetarian...

[Themrys]

It depends where you get them. Chickens produce eggs regularly (mainly unfertilised eggs, if they're not breeding) whether or not they're in captivity. My friend's family keeps chickens and sometimes they sell extra eggs at a local farmer's market stand.

That said, the overwhelming majority of supermarket eggs come from the mainstream agriculture industry, where chickens are definitely abused.

I might be the only person who made it through that food anthropology course without going vegetarian...

You only get female chickens that lay eggs by producing as many male chickens, though. And the male chickens have to be killed if you want to be somewhat efficent, as they don't even seem to live together peacefully. Keeping them alive would require a vast amount of space for them to keep out of each others way.

If you believe that killing animals is okay as long as you don't make them suffer, you can justify the consumption of eggs, but if not ... then not. Unless someday a way of producing only female chickens is found by science.

[BWR]

It depends where you get them. Chickens produce eggs regularly (mainly unfertilised eggs, if they're not breeding) whether or not they're in captivity.

That said, the overwhelming majority of supermarket eggs come from the mainstream agriculture industry, where chickens are definitely abused.


Exactly, which is why he doesn't (much) issue with what is so annoyingly labeled 'ecological' eggs around here, but does with the cheaper types.

Slightly more on topic, all these horrible stories you hear about condescending vegetarians/vegans and derisive meat-eaters and prejudices on either side is not at all what I have experienced on the subject. I can only assume I have been very lucky in my friends and family.

[Vinyadan]

You only get female chickens that lay eggs by producing as many male chickens, though. And the male chickens have to be killed if you want to be somewhat efficent, as they don't even seem to live together peacefully. Keeping them alive would require a vast amount of space for them to keep out of each others way.

If you believe that killing animals is okay as long as you don't make them suffer, you can justify the consumption of eggs, but if not ... then not. Unless someday a way of producing only female chickens is found by science.

Well, there's always capons.

[noparlpf]

You only get female chickens that lay eggs by producing as many male chickens, though. And the male chickens have to be killed if you want to be somewhat efficient, as they don't even seem to live together peacefully. Keeping them alive would require a vast amount of space for them to keep out of each others way.

If you believe that killing animals is okay as long as you don't make them suffer, you can justify the consumption of eggs, but if not ... then not. Unless someday a way of producing only female chickens is found by science.

I don't actually know anything about chickens, but some species don't have a 50-50 male-female split. Are chickens roughly 50-50 male-female?

I'm assuming most of the chicken meat that's sold is from the "excess" male chickens, and most female chickens are kept to produce eggs. So hypothetically it could all be ethical if the chickens are raised well and the males are killed cleanly, but if you believe that killing animals for food is inherently bad, then the entire thing is bad regardless of how well they're raised. So yeah, I agree that if I were vegetarian I'd probably avoid eggs too because the entire poultry industry is pretty messed up.

[Iruka]

It is in all my dishes and while it is true that non-vegetariand aren't carnivores (we do still all require some rabbit food after all) that doesn't mean we can't consider meat as an important part of our diet. I eat meat at every evening meal, often I plan my dinner's around meat. To my culture, my heritage, my upbring e.g. to me having meat at dinner is important, just as important as not having it is important to a vegetarian. There is absolutetly no chance that if you were to join me at my home for dinner meat wouldn't be involved (unless I were to specifically prepare a meatless meal for you).

And the vegetarian alternative in my house will be fake meat, so it will be more expensive.

So my position remains, I will make an effort to accomedate your believes and view when preparing dinner if you will do the same of if I come over. Not all omnivores are the same Knaight, and this particular omnivore requires meat.

If you are willing to talk about it, I'd be interested to hear why you consider meat such an integral part of your meals.


You say sentient beings as though that has some power. It doesn't. Sapience is irrelevant. Why are you hung up on this term. It's not like I'm eating a sapient being. Not that would be a difference, cuz it wouldn't. If cows were sapient and not sentient, I would still eat them. As long as their sapience doesn't compromise their tasting, of course.

I'm a bit confused by that. Does that mean you would eat humans if they were tasty enough?



I'm assuming most of the chicken meat that's sold is from the "excess" male chickens, and most female chickens are kept to produce eggs. So hypothetically it could all be ethical if the chickens are raised well and the males are killed cleanly, but if you believe that killing animals for food is inherently bad, then the entire thing is bad regardless of how well they're raised. So yeah, I agree that if I were vegetarian I'd probably avoid eggs too because the entire poultry industry is pretty messed up.

AFAIK, "meat-producing" and "egg-producing" chickens used in the industry are completely different breeds. (Not sure if that is the correct word.) They are optimized for either one or the other. Which means raising the unwanted chicks is considered uneconomical and they are quickly killed and either thrown away or used to feed other animals.

That's why I have problems taking people serious who go vegetarian because they don't want animals to suffer but will happily eat industrially produced eggs and dairy products.

[cobaltstarfire]

AFAIK, "meat-producing" and "egg-producing" chickens used in the industry are completely different breeds. (Not sure if that is the correct word.) They are optimized for either one or the other. Which means raising the unwanted chicks is considered uneconomical and they are quickly killed and either thrown away or used to feed other animals.



You are correct, there are different breeds for different uses. (Some meat chickens are pretty disturbing, some don't have any feathers at all, good and fascinating for anatomical study, but still kind of gross and very sad to look at)

Chickens that are bred to be heavy layers often have lifelong oviduct problems that can end in death regardless of if they are a pet, or came from a factory farm. One of the artists I follow keeps chickens as companion animals and is someone who focuses strongly on having the best animal husbandry possible (that is she takes the animals needs into consideration and makes sure they are happy, comfortable, and healthy). She rescues soon to be "retired" egg layers from farms on occasion, they need a ton of extra care to keep happy and healthy, because laying so many eggs constantly the way a chicken bred for laying does is also pretty bad for a chickens long term health, and the aforementioned oviduct problems. Most factory farm chickens are not in service for very long for this reason.

So yeah I tend to agree that if you're a vegetarian because of objections to animal cruelty, one should definitely be very choosy about the eggs (and milk) they consume. Especially in the US where a lot of things like the definition for "free range" is very loose, and can mean as little as "they get to be in a tightly packed yard outside on occasion". Optimally someone concerned with cruelty would keep their own chickens, and avoid breeds specifically bred to produce a gajillion eggs.

[Ceaon]

So yeah I tend to agree that if you're a vegetarian because of objections to animal cruelty, one should definitely be very choosy about the eggs (and milk) they consume.

I'd go as far as saying that non-vegetarians who object to animal cruelty should try to be a bit choosy, too ;)

[Vinyadan]

I'd go as far as saying that omnivores who object to animal cruelty should try to be a bit choosy, too ;)

Just an invitation to all vegans and vegetarians, don't use a term which is meant for animal species to describe human individuals. It sounds pretty rude, especially considering that you call yourself with hip names like vegetarian and vegan and lactarian and ovo-lactarian, instead of herbivore or frugivore or ovovore/oophage. Create something like "omniarian" and "carnarian".

[nyjastul69]

If you are willing to talk about it, I'd be interested to hear why you consider meat such an integral part of your meals.



I'm a bit confused by that. Does that mean you would eat humans if they were tasty enough?



AFAIK, "meat-producing" and "egg-producing" chickens used in the industry are completely different breeds. (Not sure if that is the correct word.) They are optimized for either one or the other. Which means raising the unwanted chicks is considered uneconomical and they are quickly killed and either thrown away or used to feed other animals.

That's why I have problems taking people serious who go vegetarian because they don't want animals to suffer but will happily eat industrially produced eggs and dairy products.

I'm fairly certain that human meat is unhealthy for humans to eat. Creutzfeld-Jacob disease I believe. I wouldn't be against it for ethical reasons.

[Flickerdart]

I'm fairly certain that human meat is unhealthy for humans to eat. Creutzfeld-Jacob disease I believe. I wouldn't be against it for ethical reasons.

Cannibalism is a bad idea for any species for one obvious reason - the diseases of the thing you are eating are perfectly suited to infecting you as well. To make matters worse, any apex predator is going to have a high concentration of toxins from eating a bunch of prey with a lower concentration of toxins. If you eat that apex predator, you concentrate those toxins in your own body at an even higher rate.

[Red Fel]

Cannibalism is a bad idea for any species for one obvious reason - the diseases of the thing you are eating are perfectly suited to infecting you as well. To make matters worse, any apex predator is going to have a high concentration of toxins from eating a bunch of prey with a lower concentration of toxins. If you eat that apex predator, you concentrate those toxins in your own body at an even higher rate.

Perhaps most importantly, it's not nutritionally satisfying. It takes a substantial number of human carcasses to properly nourish a household. You would exhaust the prey-person population far too quickly. From a dietary perspective, it's unsustainable.

Oh, and also, disease, and morality, and such. I suppose.

Although, I find, as a general matter, that creatures that think too much are just a bit too bitter for my tastes. Yours may vary. :smallamused:

[The Glyphstone]

Perhaps most importantly, it's not nutritionally satisfying. It takes a substantial number of human carcasses to properly nourish a household. You would exhaust the prey-person population far too quickly. From a dietary perspective, it's unsustainable.

Oh, and also, disease, and morality, and such. I suppose.

Although, I find, as a general matter, that creatures that think too much are just a bit too bitter for my tastes. Yours may vary. :smallamused:

Makes sense. I'd be quite bitter if someone tried to eat me.

[Red Fel]

Makes sense. I'd be quite bitter if someone tried to eat me.

You say that, but let's be honest, if Sir Anthony Hopkins came to your door with some lovely wine and a record of classical music, you'd let him pick your brain.

[DataNinja]

You say that, but let's be honest, if Sir Anthony Hopkins came to your door with some lovely wine and a record of classical music, you'd let him pick your brain.

Well, brain might be a tad much. I'd rather let them pick from an assortment of other organs. Preferably less-essential ones.

[Keltest]

You say that, but let's be honest, if Sir Anthony Hopkins came to your door with some lovely wine and a record of classical music, you'd let him pick your brain.

Hmm, I don't know. does that qualify as mind control? does "let" even come into it at that point?

[CozJa]

You say that, but let's be honest, if Sir Anthony Hopkins came to your door with some lovely wine and a record of classical music, you'd let him pick your brain.

So... now he is not only a serial killer, but even a zombie? A serial zombie?

[Ceaon]

Just an invitation to all vegans and vegetarians, don't use a term which is meant for animal species to describe human individuals. It sounds pretty rude, especially considering that you call yourself with hip names like vegetarian and vegan and lactarian and ovo-lactarian, instead of herbivore or frugivore or ovovore/oophage. Create something like "omniarian" and "carnarian".

Invatation accepted. Sorry, I saw non-vegetarians use the term earlier in this thread to describe themselves, but I can see how it could be considered rude.
Hrm. Omnitarian?

[Red Fel]

Hmm, I don't know. does that qualify as mind control? does "let" even come into it at that point?

I dunno. I think most people would instinctively open their minds to him. Or their hearts.

I suppose some just wouldn't have the guts, though.

[Ceaon]

It sounds like Red Fel has a little crush, or at least a nice case of hero-worship villain-worship. :smallamused: Maybe join him for a nice glass of Chianti?

[Flickerdart]

Although, I find, as a general matter, that creatures that think too much are just a bit too bitter for my tastes. Yours may vary. :smallamused:

Like with the fish, it's just an issue of bad seasoning on your part. While a certain amount of bitterness is unavoidable (and just like in ales, desirable) it is possible to evoke other flavour profiles with a mixture of additives and emotional states. Get someone feeling salty enough, and go from there.

[2D8HP]

Why does my diet aggravate people so?
Clearly it's because vegetarian cooking lacks eye of newt, and toe of frog (http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/eye-newt-toe-frog), and the potion just doesn't come out right.
What other reason could there be?

[Cristo Meyers]

I'm not sure whether to be slightly disturbed or highly entertained by the current siderail this thread has taken... probably a bit of both.


I dunno. I think most people would instinctively open their minds to him. Or their hearts.

I suppose some just wouldn't have the guts, though.

Maybe invite Ralph Fiennes out for a bite instead?

[Flickerdart]

Clearly it's because vegetarian cooking lacks eye of newt, and toe of frog (http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/eye-newt-toe-frog), and the potion just doesn't come out right.
What other reason could there be?

Objection! The witches are not brewing a potion, or indeed anything else that was consumed orally.

[Winter_Wolf]

I'm not sure whether to be slightly disturbed or highly entertained by the current siderail this thread has taken... probably a bit of both.



Maybe invite Ralph Fiennes out for a bite instead?

Well I'm laughing at the recent turn of thread, so I cordially invite you to join me in that.

Also, I wanna be a carnarian. Better than an omniphage, since I'll always think of "corprophage" that's not a lifestyle choice I'm into. Because, y'know, that whole poop eating thing. Nope.

[DracoknightZero]

Well I'm laughing at the recent turn of thread, so I cordially invite you to join me in that.

Also, I wanna be a carnarian. Better than an omniphage, since I'll always think of "corprophage" that's not a lifestyle choice I'm into. Because, y'know, that whole poop eating thing. Nope.

Maybe we should just call them "meat-omnom", "leaf-omnom" and "Omni-omnomnom" ?

[cobaltstarfire]

I'd go as far as saying that non-vegetarians who object to animal cruelty should try to be a bit choosy, too ;)

Wow it's almost like I was responding to someone talking about vegetarians who object to cruelty but happily ingest eggs and milk without a second thought to the animals that produced them.

[Ceaon]

Wow it's almost like I was responding to someone talking about vegetarians who object to cruelty but happily ingest eggs and milk without a second thought to the animals that produced them.

... I... what? I was agreeing with you, expanding on what you said. You said it's a bit hypocritical as a vegetarian to claim you object to animal cruelty and still eat "bad" eggs and milk that cause animal cruelty. I just added that this is true for everyone who objects to animal cruelty, not just vegetarians who object. There was no offense meant by that extrapolition. I am sorry if I still gave it.

[mrumsey]

And again, my choices do NOT make me better than anyone else.

I think this is a point where a lot of people can have issues. For example: talking with my mother can be quite painful, as she sees the world a particular way. If I see it differently and tell her about my view, she thinks I am telling her she is wrong. I am not. I am quite open to multiple, equally valid, equally correct interpretations of living in almost every facet of life.

Unfortunately, I have encountered many people who look at life this way. By saying you do something different, they think you are implying that they are wrong. You are not, but they see it differently. If you say you are doing it to make yourself better, they see that they are not and you *must* be saying that they are worse by not being better. Twisted logic, to be sure, but its there.

You really can't do anything other than not be an ******* (it doesn't look like you are) and go on with life.

[Red Fel]

It sounds like Red Fel has a little crush, or at least a nice case of hero-worship villain-worship. :smallamused: Maybe join him for a nice glass of Chianti?

Hey, he has what every villain needs.

PRESENTATION!

Respect.


I'm not sure whether to be slightly disturbed or highly entertained by the current siderail this thread has taken... probably a bit of both.


Well I'm laughing at the recent turn of thread, so I cordially invite you to join me in that.

Now I've got this craving for some pie. Anybody else suddenly want some pie?

Seems a downright shame.


Maybe we should just call them "meat-omnom", "leaf-omnom" and "Omni-omnomnom" ?

I could see Omni-nom. Or om-nom-nivore - one who eats Cookie Monsters.

The fur gets in your teeth, though. So do the tiny bones from the puppeteer's hand.

[gooddragon1]

From vegetarianism to cannibalism. The strange natures of the forum.

Man lives as goat (http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35652150) = Vegan level 2
Jesse Grass (http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Jesse_Grass) = Vegan level 5
Arboreus (http://americandad.wikia.com/wiki/Arboreus) = Vegan level 21 (low epic)

[Darth V]

Just an invitation to all vegans and vegetarians, don't use a term which is meant for animal species to describe human individuals. It sounds pretty rude, especially considering that you call yourself with hip names like vegetarian and vegan and lactarian and ovo-lactarian, instead of herbivore or frugivore or ovovore/oophage. Create something like "omniarian" and "carnarian".

Wait, what? Now we need a special fancy name to communicate the simple idea that one is not picky about one's food? That somebody does not restrict his/her diet? :smallconfused:


Invatation accepted. Sorry, I saw non-vegetarians use the term earlier in this thread to describe themselves, but I can see how it could be considered rude.
Hrm. Omnitarian?

How about Normal PeopleTM? :smalltongue: It's called a balanced diet, for crying out loud! :smallannoyed:

[noparlpf]

Technically vegetarians are "omnivores" too because it's a classification applied to species, not individuals. (Yes, that includes you. Humans are omnivores. Spoiler alert, humans are animals.) So it's not 100% accurate to say that omnivores are the group of people who are not vegetarians.

That said, I have no problem with calling non-vegetarians omnivores in a casual or colloquial setting. It's certainly not inherently offensive to most English speakers. Just make sure not to call Vinyadan an omnivore because they specifically do take offense.

[Knaight]

Just an invitation to all vegans and vegetarians, don't use a term which is meant for animal species to describe human individuals. It sounds pretty rude, especially considering that you call yourself with hip names like vegetarian and vegan and lactarian and ovo-lactarian, instead of herbivore or frugivore or ovovore/oophage. Create something like "omniarian" and "carnarian".


Invatation accepted. Sorry, I saw non-vegetarians use the term earlier in this thread to describe themselves, but I can see how it could be considered rude.
Hrm. Omnitarian?
Yeah, as a non-vegetarian I'm calling BS on this. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone object to omnivore, and "omniarian" just sounds clunky. Omnivore is a standard, accepted term that has a secondary meaning that fits this perfectly, and it's widely accepted. Plus, there are plenty of ecological and biological terms which apply to humans just fine. We're heterotrophs, we're K-strategists, we're eukaryotes, etc.

[Liquor Box]

Yeah, as a non-vegetarian I'm calling BS on this. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone object to omnivore, and "omniarian" just sounds clunky. Omnivore is a standard, accepted term that has a secondary meaning that fits this perfectly, and it's widely accepted. Plus, there are plenty of ecological and biological terms which apply to humans just fine. We're heterotrophs, we're K-strategists, we're eukaryotes, etc.

I agree. We know what is meant if terms like "omnivore" and "carnivore" are applied to humans. I would have no idea what omnarian meant if I hadn't read the posts where the term was invented. Lets not get overly sensitive (or technical) about the terms used - the point is that we know what was being referred to.

[Winter_Wolf]

Hey, he has what every villain needs.

PRESENTATION!

Respect.





Now I've got this craving for some pie. Anybody else suddenly want some pie?

Seems a downright shame.



I could see Omni-nom. Or om-nom-nivore - one who eats Cookie Monsters.

The fur gets in your teeth, though. So do the tiny bones from the puppeteer's haind.

I could go for some pie. Or scones. I think scones go better with orphans' tears, don't they? The scone sale is a pretty big currant event at the open market. Some may get a little over the top nuts.

[Starwulf]

Like with the fish, it's just an issue of bad seasoning on your part. While a certain amount of bitterness is unavoidable (and just like in ales, desirable) it is possible to evoke other flavour profiles with a mixture of additives and emotional states. Get someone feeling salty enough, and go from there.

And in other words, have them play a freemium game for a while. The saltiness will accrue quite quickly after they fail to get the item they wanted over and over again ^^ I even daresay Red Fel has some personal experience with that ^^

[Bohandas]

I have to admit that if we had the tecnhnology I would switch to eating wholly synthetic foods that were never part of any living organism, plant, animal, or otherwise. But that's more out of scorn for organic foods. Ideally it would be synthesized from space dust or moon rocks or something so that it could not in any sense of the term be said to have "came from the earth"

[Scarlet Knight]

There is a term for people who will eat anything/everything : Grandparents.

Go and ask them what they ate back in _____________ ( insert favorite word here: old country, war, depression, etc.) when they were young & poor.

If nothing else, the stories are fun, you'll learn history, and make someone old happy.

[Starwulf]

There is a term for people who will eat anything/everything : Grandparents.

Go and ask them what they ate back in _____________ ( insert favorite word here: old country, war, depression, etc.) when they were young & poor.

If nothing else, the stories are fun, you'll learn history, and make someone old happy.

Hell, doesn't even have to be grandparents ^^ My dad(who turned 70 this year) has told me about how his family would hunt and eat just about anything growing up(he comes from a family of 12 siblings, plus his parents, so 14 people altogether), including possum and just about any kind of bird you can find in PA. Talks about possum pot pie and squirrel stew, and rabbit legs and so much else stuff. Honestly, it rather makes me gag at the thought of some of it, lol.

Edit: Wife just reminded me, He's also talked about how he's eaten dog while he was over in vietnam, said it was an extremely common meat over there, most of the smaller villages ate nothing but dog meat as far as meat itself was concerned.

[Fri]

On current tangent, I remember discussing something about this in context of fantasy world where you're not sure what thing are 'okay' to eat. Especially considering how there's 'half-anything'. half dragons, half elves, half orcs, half... mermaids? etc.

So our conclusion was, if it talks (real sapience! parrot doesn't count! also telepathically communicate, etc.) it's okay to *cough*... breed with, but not okay to eat. If it doesn't talk it's not okay to breed with, but okay to eat :smallbiggrin:

[Ceaon]

Yeah, as a non-vegetarian I'm calling BS on this. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone object to omnivore, and "omniarian" just sounds clunky. Omnivore is a standard, accepted term that has a secondary meaning that fits this perfectly, and it's widely accepted. Plus, there are plenty of ecological and biological terms which apply to humans just fine. We're heterotrophs, we're K-strategists, we're eukaryotes, etc.

From what I've seen in this thread alone, some people on all sides of the discussion can be a bit touch about terminology. Or perhaps touchy in general about this subject. I feel I have tried very hard for the last 8 pages not to cause offense and still failed repeatedly, for which I have apologized. All in all, I feel it better to watch what I say carefully and look for phrasings that are acceptable to most if not all. If people say they do not find a term acceptable and there is an alternative, I go for that.
Unless someone has a problem with the term non-vegetarian, in which case, eh, well I guess I will have to invent a completely new word without any connotations :)

[Bohandas]

Eggs are actually egg cells, animal cells. If you qualify "meat" as "animal cells", they count as meat. I personally qualify meat as piece of animal, and I don't qualify eggs as animals (only the embryo which rarely might be inside them). (I also am not a vegetarian).
Well if we're getting super technical, the yolk (and attached gamete or embryo where applicable) is a cell, The shell is noncellular and secreted around it seperately, as is the egg white.

[Darth V]

Unless someone has a problem with the term non-vegetarian, in which case, eh, well I guess I will have to invent a completely new word without any connotations :)


I have a problem with being called a non-vegetarian. I don't want to be defined by not doing something which other people are doing for whatever reasons, because I don't share those reasons. I don't want to be called a non-cannibal either, for the record.

As I mentioned before, a normal, healthy and balanced diet does include meat here and there. If someone maintains a special diet in which certain items are a no-go, it can be useful to make certain distinctions, like vegetarian and it's ovo-lacto derivations, or lactose intolerance, or diabetic diet because those terms are well-defined and most people know their meanings. But there is absolutely no need for a new term to convey the meaning of "I eat (mostly)* everything".

* Personal dislike in individual foods or dishes notwithstanding: Think "I don't like Brussels sprouts! I am a Brussian!"(?)(sp?) Brusselian? How do you english-speaking people call the townsfolk of the city Brussels? :smallbiggrin:

I am an Eater. I eat things. :smallamused:

[Ceaon]

I have a problem with being called a non-vegetarian. I don't want to be defined by not doing something which other people are doing for whatever reasons, because I don't share those reasons. I don't want to be called a non-cannibal either, for the record.

As I mentioned before, a normal, healthy and balanced diet does include meat here and there. If someone maintains a special diet in which certain items are a no-go, it can be useful to make certain distinctions, like vegetarian and it's ovo-lacto derivations, or lactose intolerance, or diabetic diet because those terms are well-defined and most people know their meanings. But there is absolutely no need for a new term to convey the meaning of "I eat (mostly)* everything".

* Personal dislike in individual foods or dishes notwithstanding: Think "I don't like Brussels sprouts! I am a Brussian!"(?)(sp?) Brusselian? How do you english-speaking people call the townsfolk of the city Brussels? :smallbiggrin:

I am an Eater. I eat things. :smallamused:

Man, it is really hard to be respectful to such a diverse group. :smallbiggrin:
To be fair, I am not using the term non-vegetarian to *define* you (or the group of people you were thrown in with), but to *contrast* you(r group) with vegetarians (who, I think, also are often not defined by that term alone).

Edit: I think there is no better term than 'inhabitant of Brussels' in English.

[CozJa]

Man, it is really hard to be respectful to such a diverse group. :smallbiggrin:
To be fair, I am not using the term non-vegetarian to *define* you (or the group of people you were thrown in with), but to *contrast* you(r group) with vegetarians (who, I think, also are often not defined by that term alone).

Well, technically "people who eat" is the general set, and "vegetarians, vegans, lactose intolerants etc..." are generic subsets. And considering that we all have our quirks in eating, maybe "Those who are not part of my subset" may be a valid definition :smallbiggrin:


Edit: I think there is no better term than 'inhabitant of Brussels' in English.

In Italy we have a joke on our difficulty in declining "Belgian" in the plural form

[Raddish]

As a vegetable, vegetarians are scary to me.

I currently work with a Vegan who generally speaking is not one to push their diet and judge you for what you eat. At least not vocally. But the way they talk about their diet on occasion makes me sometimes feel like they judge everyone else as bad even if they don't say anything.

Though I think their attitude would cause them to do that no matter how they lived. They would find something to feel superior about.

[AMFV]

This has definitely morphed into an interesting conversation.

I think that the earlier point about the social aspect of food is a big one. I've been on really restrictive and unusual diets, and people definitely aren't sure how to react to people who are on those kind of diets. Eating out tends to be a big social event for most people, especially when you're travelling and that can be an area where people start to get really uncomfortable if you can't share in that particular experience, and it's uncomfortable for you as well, since you're ostracizing yourself from people. Although at least as a vegetarian or a vegan you can go and eat regularly, you aren't trapped without being able to eat out at all, which is something I've experienced.

For me personally usually when I talk to vegetarians or vegans, I just tell them I wouldn't be able to get the amount of protein I need eating that sort of diet. If they try to correct me, I just proceed to point out the amount of protein I'm eating in grams and usually they don't bother me so much after that point. Although that may not be the case for the more militant sort, it's definitely the case for most vegetarians or vegans who are usually pretty okay folks.

[Ceaon]

As a vegetable, vegetarians are scary to me.

Okay, I LOL'd. "Get back here, Raddish! You are the largest source of proteins I will eat all day!!"


This has definitely morphed into an interesting conversation.

I think that the earlier point about the social aspect of food is a big one. I've been on really restrictive and unusual diets, and people definitely aren't sure how to react to people who are on those kind of diets. Eating out tends to be a big social event for most people, especially when you're travelling and that can be an area where people start to get really uncomfortable if you can't share in that particular experience, and it's uncomfortable for you as well, since you're ostracizing yourself from people.

This, again, is a good point. I now realized it might also be why I feel (subconsciously) vulnerable during meals with friends/strangers/colleagues as well.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

OK, I skipped from page 4 to here, so please do excuse me if this has been brought up before.

A major issue I have with vegetarians - especially people who feel strongly about being vegetarian - is that they seem to think that telling me they are vegetarian somehow explains their dietary needs to me. It does not. I see from the top of the page that the good ol' "are eggs OK?" has been brought up, but it is hardly unique. Vegetarians-due-to-avoidance-of-harm sometimes include eggs and milk. But might be fine with fish, which I maybe foolishly consider meat. Vegetarians-due-to-religion are all over the place. The line between vegans and vegetarians are not as clear cut as either group tends to claim. If I'm cooking, I'd rather get a list of what they're willing or not willing to eat (whichever is shorter), than just hear "I'm vegetarian". Then I try to comb through my recipes to find something I can prepare (vichyssoise being the simplest I can get... but contains milk, followed by omelet... but it contains eggs).

And yes, I'm not a vegetarian, but I do enjoy cooking, and do like when people enjoy what I cook, so I do try to cater to those that will be eating it so they can at least give it a try. But if there is more than one type of vegetarian involved, it quickly becomes a Venn diagram from Hel.

Couple of more points: early on, the OP mentioned that they feel they are reducing their environmental impact by skipping the cow. The problem is that cannot be the case. The cow is nature's way of turning grass - a very abundant plant life that we cannot digest - into proteins that we can. So replacing a cow is not just a matter of serving up a nice plate of what the cow eats, but ripping up the grass and planting something else in its place. Which is starting to be a bit of a problem in many places - soil depletion and water usage being major environmental issues. Not to mention that I feel bad for the grass - I like all living things, I don't discriminate based on their brain functions, and to me it is a little weird that some people do (especially since it requires, somewhere, a line on the sand between what is sufficiently intelligent, and what is not, which feels really arbitrary).

Now, to address the counter-claims from the meat eaters: as a general group, "meat-eaters" can be even more picky than vegetarians. Especially if you come from the US, I'm sorry to say: if it is not cow or chicken or bacon, you tend to turn your nose to it, as a general rule. In my life, I have tried a bit of everything when given the chance, and learnt to cook most of it: cow, pig, chicken, goat, sheep, all manner of fish, horse, ostrich, dog, elephant, snake, crocodile*, the list goes on. But please don't claim you "eat meat" if you won't eat a nice horse steak if I present it to you, and be disgusted if I suggest serving dog. So when I see people start throwing around accusations of vegetarians being on some kind of high position, it does come over as more than a bit hypocritical when they themselves won't eat every meat, just the ones they consider appropriate.

Finally, as a personal note, I too try to reduce my environmental impact. I'm not 100% sure of my reasoning, but I understand that energy consumption is a probable top contender for impact, so I pay extra to make sure all my energy comes from wind/solar (which also helps put money in the pockets of those improving both, therefore making them more affordable down the line for those who can't afford the choice right now), and as soon as I can, I intend to switch to a vehicle that can be plugged in to the same source, so I can remove myself from a major component of the Oil business. But I can't see how encouraging megafarms is a better choice than encouraging ethically raised cows/pigs/etc, which are what I buy when I buy meat to cook.

Grey Wolf

*I'll grant you that the best crocodile I ever had was in Louisiana, so this doesn't apply to US as much as the others in the list

[Bohandas]

don't use a term which is meant for animal species to describe human individuals.

False dichotomy

[Fri]

Now, to address the counter-claims from the meat eaters: as a general group, "meat-eaters" can be even more picky than vegetarians. Especially if you come from the US, I'm sorry to say: if it is not cow or chicken or bacon, you tend to turn your nose to it, as a general rule. In my life, I have tried a bit of everything when given the chance, and learnt to cook most of it: cow, pig, chicken, goat, sheep, all manner of fish, horse, ostrich, dog, elephant, snake, crocodile*, the list goes on. But please don't claim you "eat meat" if you won't eat a nice horse steak if I present it to you, and be disgusted if I suggest serving dog. So when I see people start throwing around accusations of vegetarians being on some kind of high position, it does come over as more than a bit hypocritical when they themselves won't eat every meat, just the ones they consider appropriate.


Oh, I agree with this. Actually, these kind of people annoy me more than vegans, simply because I encounter them more.

Basically people who think there's inherent property of "edible" and "inedible" animal other than what we arbitrarily make. I mean, something like people acting like the culture who eat dog is disgusting and act like they have moral high ground because... dog is pet? dog is cute? Not sure.

I mean, sure I eat meat heavily but don't eat dogs or cats or panda, but I understand that it's more of my upbringing and the how panda is critically endangered, and maybe their meat taste? dunno, never eat any of them, rather than the inherent property of dogs or cats or panda. There's nothing in animal dna that mark them as "food" or "pet." Cows are holy for a billion people and they don't eat them, some people consider sheeps cute and don't eat them, pigs are smarter than dogs but a lot of people still eat them, etc. I hope you get what I mean.