7 ms·
Thank you for making that point. False dichotomies annoy the heck out of me. I encourage people who are not to try and eat vegetarian (never mind vegan - and B
by frossie 16y ago
Thank you for making that point. False dichotomies annoy the heck out of me.
I encourage people who are not to try and eat vegetarian (never mind vegan - and BTW I am neither) for one week as an intellectual exercise. The issue is not whether one eats meat, but how totally unthinking our meat consumption has become - bacon for breakfast, ham sandwich for lunch, burger for dinner.
The question isn't whether to be vegan or omnivore, but whether it is necessary to eat meat at every meal, as is now common in many Western countries. A lot of the ecological, social and humanitarian concerns of meat production can be significantly improved by just reducing red meat consumption.
A lot of our food choices are habitual choices that can be changed with minor effort. Have hummus instead of ham in that sandwich. Have shrimp instead of beef in your Thai curry. Don't eat a mammal every meal out of reflex - eat it mindfully, and pay a fair price for humanely reared meat. The planet (and probably your body) will thank you for it.
- abeppu 16y agoFor bonus points, keep track of hidden meat, like gelatin in 'yogurt' and marshmallows, isinglass in your wine, or bonechar in your sugar, or lard, oyster sauce, fish sauce or chicken broth snuck into otherwise vegetarian dishes.
- makmanalp 16y agoI appreciate the sentiment that you should know what you eat, but don't understand this mentality that I observe many vegetarian / vegans have. Oh no, gelatin snuck in your food, you're not a proper vegan / vegetarian anymore! Beat yourself up about it! It oddly reminds me of those tiny silly inconsequential rules that you're supposed to pay attention in some religions. Like no alcohol. What does that have anything to do with the main idea of the religion? Oops, you ingested some chicken broth. Feel bad about it. Maybe we'll forgive you later.
- pyre 16y agoIt's not about 'rules' or 'regulations.' For some it's about morality. If I find it immoral to eat a dead animal, then why would it be 'ok' because it's 'only chicken broth?' I've still supported (with my money) the death of an animal. [ Please don't break down into some 'but animals die all the time in the wild,' argument. It's slightly different when we created the animal just for the purpose of killing it for meat. We take issue with the idea of growing full-sized human clones just to harvest for organs in the event that the original needs a transplant (i.e. The Island), so why is it that different for animals? They are still living beings, but our society has been raised to treat them like a commodity. No different than some mineral that was mined out of hole in the ground. Unless they are one of the 'chosen' types of animal (e.g. dog, cat, etc) then it's totally immoral to treat them poorly or (god forbid) eat them. ]
- scythe 16y ago>Please don't break down into some 'but animals die all the time in the wild,' argument. Yeah, let's not bring up a totally valid objection!
- pyre 16y agoPlease expand on how it's valid. [edit] I'm being open to debate here, but instead of debate, I get down votes? Is that really what HN is about? [/edit]
- thret 16y agoAll animals are in one way or another a food source for other animals. It is in no way evil if an animal suffers unless that suffering is intentionally caused by a human. Our sin is in the mass production and mis-treatment of livestock while they are alive, not in the actual killing or eating. Not eating mass-produced chicken or wearing leather makes sense, refusing free-range eggs or seafood does not. Not that there can be any real debate over an issue that predominately comes down to personal opinion. Always better to do what you are comfortable with and allow others to do the same.
- abeppu 16y agoI was mainly trying to underline frossie's comment about how people eat meat unthinkingly, by pointing out that they may often also be eating meat unknowingly. It's shocking how pervasive dead animal products are in our society -- to the point that we use shellac (including dead insects) to wax apples, so even raw fruit may not be vegetarian. For the record, I'm a vegetarian, but I drink filtered wine (isinglass or oxblood), eat cheeses made with rennet, eat sugar without knowing whether it was whitened with bone char, and last week ate a dessert that likely contained gelatin. I don't think those things mean I'm not a vegetarian, but I find it crazy that our society has so much dead animal hanging around that we've stopped keeping track of where we put it.
- cubix 16y agoI thought the lighted hearted mockery of this mentality in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was pretty funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIXv9N9PHO8&t=0m40s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIXv9N9PHO8&t=0m40s
- technomancy 16y agoDe-veganizing ray! ZUM!
- halostatue 16y agoPeople who don't eat meat regularly lose an enzyme they need to properly digest meat. When I find that I've accidentally consumed something with chicken broth in it, I am physically ill during digestion. Therefore, I ask whether a soup or a risotto is made with a meat broth, because it's not worth me getting ill over. Chicken broth is used in too many places as "instant flavour" where water would do just as well, or a mushroom broth. There's no reason for it, and the chefs I spoke with in Italy were horrified by the use of chicken broth in making a risotto. I choose not to have anything with gelatin in it, because it's a useless filler, especially to yogurt. If you really need to thicken yogurt because you're reducing the milk's fat content, use agar or pectin. (I am ova-lacto vegetarian, although I reduce my lacto because I'm mildly milk intolerant, more's the pity.)