4 ms·

> As a vegetarian (by ethical choice, not medical necessity), I do my best not to lose sight of the simple fact that I'm the problem here. This sounds like a c

> As a vegetarian (by ethical choice, not medical necessity), I do my best not to lose sight of the simple fact that I'm the problem here. This sounds like a contradiction to me. You recognize that meat eating should not happen, so it's a problem, but in the same sentence you're backtracking and calling vegetarianism a problem. If you accept that eating meat is bad, then you're implicitly calling meat eaters a problem. Unless you consider that everyone, you should indemnify yourself. I would never call someone trying to do the right thing in a sea of those who don't a problem...

verytrivial 8y ago
I think you can read "problem" here as "practical inconvenience" without changing the argument.
xelxebar 8y ago
He recognizes vegetarianism as ethically good while also recognizing that pushing those personal ethics on others often results in a net bad. That's how I read it at least, and it sounds like a responsible way of handling personal values. That said, if we do want more people to be vegetarian, then instead of simply making minimal hassle for others, we could also take the opportunity to proactively educate in a caring manner. If we want a vegetarian world, then instead of scrounging for sides at a dinner party, we could redefine the party to be a collaborative cooking one, or we could try to do more potluck, or we could be more proactive about choosing the meal venue. Those options take extra effort and aren't even possible a lot of the time, so I feel like OP's non-aggressive stance is a really respectable default.
Angostura 8y ago
Not really, I recognise that using a car is a problem in terms of carbon emissions. If someone invites me on holiday, and I insist we all walk there, I am inconveniencing them even though I'm correct.
wanderfowl 8y ago
Nothing makes "I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain" carnivores faster than dickish vegans. And there's a difference between an ethical problem (killing and eating something morally relevant which would rather not be killed and eaten), and a social problem (violating the social norms of cooperation and causing complication).

verytrivial 8y ago

I think you can read "problem" here as "practical inconvenience" without changing the argument.

xelxebar 8y ago

He recognizes vegetarianism as ethically good while also recognizing that pushing those personal ethics on others often results in a net bad. That's how I read it at least, and it sounds like a responsible way of handling personal values. That said, if we do want more people to be vegetarian, then instead of simply making minimal hassle for others, we could also take the opportunity to proactively educate in a caring manner. If we want a vegetarian world, then instead of scrounging for sides at a dinner party, we could redefine the party to be a collaborative cooking one, or we could try to do more potluck, or we could be more proactive about choosing the meal venue. Those options take extra effort and aren't even possible a lot of the time, so I feel like OP's non-aggressive stance is a really respectable default.

Angostura 8y ago

Not really, I recognise that using a car is a problem in terms of carbon emissions. If someone invites me on holiday, and I insist we all walk there, I am inconveniencing them even though I'm correct.

wanderfowl 8y ago

Nothing makes "I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain" carnivores faster than dickish vegans. And there's a difference between an ethical problem (killing and eating something morally relevant which would rather not be killed and eaten), and a social problem (violating the social norms of cooperation and causing complication).