|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a nearly-vegetarian. Meaning that mostly, I refrain from eating meat. I only do eat meat when I really, really feel like it, which means that sometimes months can pass from one hamburger to the next. This has been the case for a bit more than a year now.
Most people don't get it. They don't seem to be able to comprehend that doing a little wrong is better than doing a lot of wrong. That someone is entitled to act upon his or her beliefs as much as he or she feels comfortable with.
Nearly every single person, even the strictest of idealists, lives a life of constant compromise with his philosophy. There's always that certain point at which you decide that you don't feel like banding your life over to accomplish yet another tiny bit of the mantras you live by. For example, a vegetarian is not eating meat, but she does eat milk products and eggs - even though the animals that suffer to produce those products suffer nearly as much as any pig that's being lead to the slaughter.And actual vegens? they have their limits, too. they are so far away that for most of us they don't seem visible, but they are there.
The only difference between me and a fully fledged vegetarian is that my breaking point was a *bit* further from the ideal than theirs. I still want the freedom to grab a big bite of Delicious dead animal every now and then. It would still take about 30-50 like me to equal an average citizen of the united states in meat consumption. Frankly, if everyone in the world would have been like me on this, the meat industry woulnd't be anywhere near the vicinity of the monster it is today.
And the same thing applies to every ideology - for example, religion. Having known a whole bunch of religious people over the years, I came to realize that all of them seem to only adhere to the parts of their religion that they are comfortable with. Every one of them has divine laws that they ignore because they seem stupid, or because they oppose other ideas that they have. For example, one friend of mine had no problem waking up each day at 5 am to pray because the bible said she should, but she would never take seriously the chauvinistic parts of her religion. Similarly, each religious person Iv'e know or heard of has handpicked which parts of their religion are "sane" and "meant to be taken seriously in modern times" and which are not.
Again, same principle also applies to many other schools of thought - rationality, liberalism, feminism or really any other ideology.
At my current rate, Iv'e calculated I'll need a couple of life times just to eat my way through an entire cow. Meaning that I will have zero impact on the meat industry and, when compared to most human who lived throughout our specie's history, kill an insanely low amount of living things. I'm doing this because this is the exact spot in which I feel best with myself. I believe that since any single human can't affect anything on a global scale, out life style choices should be guided by selfish motivations - "what makes me feel best?". Recently I discovered that when I eat too much meat, I start feeling bad about it. So I toned down the quantities more and more until I reached a point I'm happy with .Regardless of my exact reasoning, my stance on the matter is every bit as honest and real as full vegetarianism or flat out carnivorism.
People in my close surrounding are puzzled by this, never matter how much I try to stress my point - everyone's style of life is a half measure, I just happen to have founded an uncommon place on the scale for myself. It's not hypocrisy, it's just me, doing whatever I'm willing to do to make things more right, without sacrificing too much.
Do you think half measures are not as honest as more total ideals?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the same thing applies to every ideology - for example, religion. Having known a whole bunch of religious people over the years, I came to realize that all of them seem to only adhere to the parts of their religion that they are comfortable with. Every one of them has divine laws that they ignore because they seem stupid, or because they oppose other ideas that they have.
The problem comes when they (hypocritically) don't extend the same courtesy to those around them. If you just order a salad and don't care what I eat, that's fine, and I approve of your attempt to be a better person. If you as a semi-vegetarian insist that I should not be allowed to eat meat, we have an issue.
A more serious example comes in with religion. As you point out, no one, or almost no one, follows every rule in the book of Leviticus. Indeed, Newt Gingrich was divorced twice -- so much for his opinion on the sanctity of marriage. Except when he's speaking in public about the possibility of gay marriage, he is absolutely appalled at the possibility of traditional marriage breaking down.
So, which "traditional marriage" are you worried about breaking down, Mr. Gingrich? Your marriage to Jacqueline May Battley? Your marriage to Marianne Ginther? Or your one to Callista Bisek?
I don't think you're a hypocrite, your lordship. I'm not, however, willing to extend that courtesy to everyone who lives half-measures -- especially the ones who upbraid people for living different half-measures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends on how you define the ideal. Hypocrisy is not about how you deal with the ideal towards you or others, but rather if you proclaim to have an ideal and do not act accordingly. It also doesn't matter whether the net result is positive or not; it's about breaking the codes you claim to live by, even if breaking them wouldn't actually make any difference in the big picture.
So that requires us to ask what the ideal is really about. If our ideal is to protect the sanctity of human life, killing just a few people would be hypocritical, but also it would to ignore the needs of an ailing homeless person. I'm a Catholic, and I constantly stumble upon my own hypocrisy. I haven't killed anyone, but I'm not living on my bare minimum so others won't suffer either. Sure, I donate 20% of my income every month, but I still keep my refrigerator stuffed.
The thing is, not all ideals have to be so extreme. If you live by a value of "Eating meat is evil", then eating a bit of meat is hypocritical, even if you eat one burger per year and thus make no impact on the industry. But if your ideal goes more on the lines of "Reducing the impact of humans on nature", then it wouldn't be hypocritical at all, because you are actually doing precisely that.
Of course, we tend to ascribe ourselves to ideals that are bound to make us hypocrites in one way or another; the reason they are called "Ideals" is because the term harkens to the Platonic notion of ideas, perfect absolutes that are beyond the material world.
But then again, we are hypocritical when we knowingly break our proclaimed ideas even though we could have not to; I could wake up every morning to go help sick people, yet I choose not to. That's me being a hypocrite. However, I cannot feasibly solve world hunger, so that's beyond my -current, at least- capacity and thus not necessarily a hypocritical attitude.
It's about will and capacity, I think, and meeting ideal goals, rather than adjusting. That's why phrases like "Doing it on principle" exist, for when we do something because we don't want to break our ideals yet we know it won't necessarily mean a practical difference.
Q: How do you know when someone is vegan?
A: Oh, don't worry. They'll tell you.
Seriously though, to me it's less about a person's choices and more about how they choose to share them. I'm more impressed with Christians that quietly try to live a Christ-like life than I am those that shout proudly from the rooftops about how everything they do in their life is for Jesus.
Likewise, if you choose to be a vegan in an effort to divorce your diet from animal suffering, more power to you. I don't need Facebook posts on the horrors of animal cruelty in the food industry every 10 minutes. It's not that I'm unaware. Like the Christian trying to save my soul who thinks its just that somehow I've never heard of the Bible, you're not telling me anything new. I'm comfortable in my cruelty. Now leave me alone.
I could start getting snarky here about bandwagons, o'er weening pride, and clamoring for attention, but I'll pass. Suffice to say that just because I don't make the same decisions you do, it doesn't follow that I think you've made the wrong choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"They who make revolution half way, they are digging their own graves."
--Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
Vive le Galt!
---
Re: veganism: it hasn't really affected me much, but a bunch of my friends have had their lives thrown all a-tizzy by a crazy, possibly sociopathic, raw, organic food only vegan, so one can imagine my delight as I got into the second half of the first season of True Blood.
I know you aren't saying it, but you can be misinterpreted as saying people who eat meat are bad, in your second paragraph.
|
|
I know you aren't saying it, but you can be misinterpreted as saying people who eat meat are bad, in your second paragraph.
Well, yeah, I guess (too much time has gone by for me to edit that away).
To clarify, my intention was that by eating meat you are funding people who kill animals, and usually in a very brutal way (not to mention the way the animals are treated even before they are killed).
Obviously, as I stated I eat meat myself, I don't consider non-vegens to be bad people. You can be a good person even without making special efforts to fight international powers that you have no chance whatsoever to impact in the slightest.
I do find it problematic for myself, personally, to eat a lot of meat. Makes me feel uneasy. But I wouldn't expect others to act the same way - it's a personal choice, just like Klaus van der Kroft's decision to donate 20% of his income.
The problem comes when they (hypocritically) don't extend the same courtesy to those around them. If you just order a salad and don't care what I eat, that's fine, and I approve of your attempt to be a better person. If you as a semi-vegetarian insist that I should not be allowed to eat meat, we have an issue
Indeed. Many of those who had problems with my philosophy on the matter are vegens, who think of what I'm doing as a lie I'm telling to myself or something. When, in fact, they tell themselves the very lies that they accused me of - that there are lines they can still cross but are not doing so because they are unwilling to, because it would just inconvenience them too much. At least I am aware that I am not trying to be consistent or say anything universal - I'm just doing what feels best for me (part of the reason it feels good is that I feel that if everyone would have acted exactly like me, it would be enough - meaning that I am not a part of the problem, as far as I see it).
I could start getting snarky here about bandwagons, o'er weening pride, and clamoring for attention, but I'll pass. Suffice to say that just because I don't make the same decisions you do, it doesn't follow that I think you've made the wrong choice.
I like this phrase, and I'll probably use it to demonstrate what I mean in further real life discussions I might have on the matter.
We have a philosophical disagreement there...
I have been in an abattoir and seen how my food is killed. The methods of killing animals are far more humane then they were 20-30 years ago. Nor do have a problem with traditional methods of killing animals as long as it is quick and the animal does not suffer.
You can not divorce yourself from animals being killed and live a modern life.
Do you wear leather, make use of leather goods?
Many plastics, including shopping bags, contain ‘slip agents’(Animal Fat), which reduce the friction in the material.
Car or bike tires and fireworks, use animal-based stearic acid.
Animal glue (made from boiling animal connective tissue and bones) is apparently the best adhesive for fixing musical instruments made from wood such as violins and pianos.
Fabric softener contains Dihydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride, which comes from the cattle, sheep and horse industry.
“Glycerin” in shampoo, conditioner, and toothpaste can be either animal or plant based.
Purified ash from animal bones is used in filters to refine sugar by many sugar companies.
Lots of everyday items made from pig
I am at peace with killing eating and using animals. What concerns me in the destruction of native habitat and species by non native species.
For that reason I would have all cats & foxes in Australia destroyed.
I would stop farming Cattle and sheep and farm Kangaroos, Crocodiles and Emus instead.
Everything I learned about half measures, I learned from Breaking Bad :)
what does someone's opinion mean to you? If it works for you, then do it, don't try to fit it under someone else's label. I'm sure there are millions of people who's diet is exactly the same as you....albeit because they can't access the food like you do. I don't hear them complaining about being labelled.
Its not the actual slavery where the evil happens, its with The required secondary powers and absolute power abuse.
I was 15 or 16 when I decided to dabble with vegetarianism. It was difficult because I never particularly liked vegetables. I was courting a young Jewish woman and she invited me over to her house to study Hebrew (and have oral sex).
For dinner, she ordered two pizzas. The vegetarian one had olives, which I still don't like; the other had sausage which not only wasn't vegetarian, nor was it kosher.
Needless to say, I gave up vegetarianism. Also, needless to say, I never mastered Hebrew. [Waggles eyebrows]
I know you aren't saying it, but you can be misinterpreted as saying people who eat meat are bad, in your second paragraph.
I (a meat lover) would agree that the planet would be better off if more people ate less meat, purely from resource/energy/water conservation and public health POVs. From these perspectives, pragmatic 'nearly-vegetarianism' is the optimal and 'militant vegans' with an all-or-nothing attitude actually are part of their problem (since they -pardon my lack of correctness- suggest that vegetarianism is not for normal people).
It's not the meat eaters that are bad, it is a culture of eating lots of meat that is problematic from health and environmental perspectives. (I'm staying away from animal welfare issues now, trying to argue the rational case rather than the moral one).
Meat is not a byproduct of all the other animal products, but the other way around. Replacing significant portion (wild guess: 50-90%) of the global meat with vegetable food should not affect the 'modern lifestyle' too much.
I think they are.
Someone that eats meat maintains that its not wrong. Someone avoiding it because its bad.. most of the time.. KNOWS its bad but is doing it anyway.
In theory, cheese milk eggs etc. can be a genuine symbiotic relationship. Hamburger can't be.
Being vegan does little to cause less harm, farm equipment kills so many per acre. see a deer caught in a combine before being smug about your vegan grain dinner.....
You might be overstating your case a bit. Vast difference between getting the occasional accidental death per 10,000 meals and purposefully killing something to eat.
I drive on a highway system that people died to make.
|
|
We have a philosophical disagreement there...
I find your post a bit confusing because you start by stating this and then spend the rest of it talking about a disagreement about facts, not philosophies... unless I misunderstood you somehow.
About the facts you stated - most of the items you listed can be made without killing the animal or replaced by other materials. You won't manage to convince me that a species as smart as ours can't figure out a way to create those products without holding billions of heard animals across the world and slaughtering them in an industrious rate. We managed to do more impressive things than "reducing friction in shopping bags" with far scarcer materials.
As for the killing methods used today - it's not a universal thing. For every place of business that goes about the killings in a dignified way there is another one which doesn't. Iv'e seen enough evidence of this in various videos and TV news to know that the picture, as a whole, is rather grim. Even setting that aside, I am uncomfortable with killing (of anything other than bugs, really) and wish to avoid it as much as possible. The kind of wholesale, well oiled death machine that is producing our meat is making me extremely uncomfortable.
I hardly ever hear anyone who attempts to dispute the fact that the meat industry is a rather ugly thing. Most people don't care enough to do anything about it. I care enough to do little about it. Some people care much more than I do. The bottom line is that together, as a species, we are hurting and killing much more than we have to in order to live comfortably.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Its not the actual slavery where the evil happens, its with The required secondary powers and absolute power abuse.
You despicable b-----d. I was at work. Ambush troping somebody like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
On-topic: You have to pick your fights, and you don't always win them, even when you're fighting yourself. You can't solve all the world's problems.
I think there are some areas of morality about which even small compromises aren't tolerable, and it's OK to police other people. For instance, murder. But for most issues of personal morality, it's not OK to browbeat others. We have to sort these things our for ourselves.
I could start getting snarky here about bandwagons, o'er weening pride, and clamoring for attention, but I'll pass. Suffice to say that just because I don't make the same decisions you do, it doesn't follow that I think you've made the wrong choice.
I'd take this a step farther and say: Just because I disagree with your choice doesn't mean I want to take away your right to make that choice.
Being vegan does little to cause less harm, farm equipment kills so many per acre. see a deer caught in a combine before being smug about your vegan grain dinner.....You might be overstating your case a bit. Vast difference between getting the occasional accidental death per 10,000 meals and purposefully killing something to eat.
I drive on a highway system that people died to make.
While the occasional deer is the most graphic, the number of small furry creatures is huge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Snow, with all respect, I think that's just a lot of articulate rationalization for how you (1) think it's wrong but (2) do it anyway because it's too inconvenient to do what's right.
Maybe you want to re-examine how wrong you really think it is, or alternately, how far you're actually willing to go to do what's right.
|
Do you think half measures are not as honest as more total ideals?
All things in moderation, the saying goes. If you feel more comfortable being 'mostly' a vegetarian, instead of a full vegetarian, or a vegan, or a local foods or whole foods or raw foods sort, then that seems fine to me. You have chosen to reduce your impact, instead of teetotalling and completely eliminate your impact.
Given what I've seen of people who go 'cold turkey' on something (drinking, smoking, etc.), that might be a wiser and more realistic and, most importantly, more sustainable, choice, in the long run. Better to *control* your behavior than to deny yourself something and end up resenting it and, eventually, 'falling of the wagon,' in some sort of ego-deflating binge-and-purge cycle that only teaches you how to repeatedly fail (and hammers home the message that you *can't* control yourself, and ends with someone crying on the sofa eating a gallon of ice cream and hating themself for being weak).
That being said, different measures work for different people. Some do 'cold turkey' just fine. Others take the journey of 1000 steps, and reward themselves for each success, until they end up at a destination they never thought they could reach at the beginning.
The important part, to me, is to remember that it is different for different people, and nobody should rush to judge someone else for not being as able to do something exactly the same way that they have done it themselves. I kicked diabetes (and six months of vegetarianism helped), and have been insulin free for a decade. I do not consider myself in any position to criticize anyone who *hasn't* kicked diabetes through that sort of 'extreme dieting' or whatever. (Heck, I'm not sure if I could even repeat that feat!)
A sure sign that someone is a sociopath is if they try to measure everyone else by their own yardstick. 'I used heroin and didn't become a junkie, therefore everyone who *did* become a junkie must be weak and pathetic and utterly undeserving of sympathy!' 'I quit smoking and it was easy, so anyone who says it's hard is just a wimpy whiner!' 'I didn't have a job once, and I didn't have to use food stamps!' To hell with those people. They might not be clinical psychopaths, but they are engaging in psychopathic behavior, assuming that they can judge (or condemn, or belittle) others based on something they did once, or some choice they have made, that they have no business criticizing others for not making.
9/10 predators agree: Pigs are for eating.
|
|
OTOH, we feed a lot of grain to our meat animals, so with that you get the dead deer and small furry creatures and the animals you're eating.While the occasional deer is the most graphic, the number of small furry creatures is huge.Being vegan does little to cause less harm, farm equipment kills so many per acre. see a deer caught in a combine before being smug about your vegan grain dinner.....You might be overstating your case a bit. Vast difference between getting the occasional accidental death per 10,000 meals and purposefully killing something to eat.
I drive on a highway system that people died to make.
yep but most meat eaters do not use morality of killing animals as the core of why their way is the only right way....
|
|
Lord Snow, with all respect, I think that's just a lot of articulate rationalization for how you (1) think it's wrong but (2) do it anyway because it's too inconvenient to do what's right.
Maybe you want to re-examine how wrong you really think it is, or alternately, how far you're actually willing to go to do what's right.
How, would you say, am I different from a vegetarian who is aware that eating milk/egg products is every bit as bad as eating meat products, and still allows herself to eat them? Because there are quite a number of these people, and other than actual vegens, I just about never hear anyone say that vegetarians should "re-examine how wrong you really think it is, or alternately, how far you're actually willing to go to do what's right."
Eating animals is terribly inefficient -- that really an inescapable result of where they sit on the food chain. That is simply fact. Whether or not you think that inefficiency results in a moral imperative is a matter of opinion.
As to people advertising their vegan-ism: It is often useful to state preference clearly at restaurants, in advance of social gatherings, etc. to help ensure there are appropriate options.
And as to the OP...I agree, half measures are often not hypocrisies, especially in cases where compromise is the only realistic alternative (not really applicable in this case, but still).
As to people advertising their vegan-ism: It is often useful to state preference clearly at restaurants, in advance of social gatherings, etc. to help ensure there are appropriate options.
Yes, and that's to be expected. My tongue-in-cheek mention was referring to the ones that like to proselytize about their morally superior lifestyle even when food isn't being served.
|
|
Yes, and that's to be expected. My tongue-in-cheek mention was referring to the ones that like to proselytize about their morally superior lifestyle even when food isn't being served.
As to people advertising their vegan-ism: It is often useful to state preference clearly at restaurants, in advance of social gatherings, etc. to help ensure there are appropriate options.
You need to do what is best and healthiest for you, with no negativity, name-calling or labels.
Period.
People have different dietary needs. I, myself, am hypoglycemic. Have been all my life. Sometimes, when I am pressed for time and have not eaten as I should, I need a candy bar to help me even out. It sounds counterintuitive for a candy bar to be a dietary supplement, but it just happens sometimes. I've taken a bit of crap for it, but those people don't understand the condition.
In the end, life feeds on life. As the song says, "this is necessary."
There's no wrong or evil about it. Just that we need to remember to be as humane as we possibly can in all of our endeavors, not just food.
Do you mean like that?Yes, and that's to be expected. My tongue-in-cheek mention was referring to the ones that like to proselytize about their morally superior lifestyle even when food isn't being served.
As to people advertising their vegan-ism: It is often useful to state preference clearly at restaurants, in advance of social gatherings, etc. to help ensure there are appropriate options.
Thankfully, I haven't met any of the psychic vegans yet. Good thing too, because they actually would be morally superior. Might makes right, after all.
I am not vegan, but will happily proselytize about my morally superior lifestyle. ;-)
How, would you say, am I different from a vegetarian who is aware that eating milk/egg products is every bit as bad as eating meat products, and still allows herself to eat them? Because there are quite a number of these people, and other than actual vegens, I just about never hear anyone say that vegetarians should "re-examine how wrong you really think it is, or alternately, how far you're actually willing to go to do what's right."
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. Some vegetarians believe that eating milk and eggs is every bit as bad as eating meat products but still eat them anyway - therefore...?
In OP you write:
Most people don't get it. They don't seem to be able to comprehend that doing a little wrong is better than doing a lot of wrong. That someone is entitled to act upon his or her beliefs as much as he or she feels comfortable with.
You seem to be saying "I know this is wrong. But I do it anyway. But, hey, I'm not comfortable with doing it in such a way that I'm doing no wrong whatsoever, and a little wrong is better than a lot of wrong, right? So who are you to judge?"
That, to me, sounds like a rationalization. Pretend it wasn't about vegetarianism (which may be muddying things a bit). Say it was about me stealing. I say "I know stealing is wrong. But it's really convenient for me to steal a little now and again. And, hey, it's just small stuff, it's not like it's a million dollars. I should be able to ignore my moral instincts when they make me uncomfortable."
One might well ask whether (1) I actually think stealing is wrong (2) I actually care about being a moral person.
@ Lord Snow re-reading and trying to understand I think maybe you think my post was trying to "argue you out of" vegetarianism. I'm not, I think it's perfectly intellectually defensible. But your question, if I am reading you correctly, is not about the propriety of vegetarianism, it's about the propriety of moral compromise. Your post could just have easily been about stealing or gambling or premarital sex or beating your kids or not beating your kids.
Hope that helps clear up, I am less than articulate sometimes.
You seem to be saying "I know this is wrong. But I do it anyway. But, hey, I'm not comfortable with doing it in such a way that I'm doing no wrong whatsoever, and a little wrong is better than a lot of wrong, right? So who are you to judge?"
That, to me, sounds like a rationalization. Pretend it wasn't about vegetarianism (which may be muddying things a bit). Say it was about me stealing. I say "I know stealing is wrong. But it's really convenient for me to steal a little now and again. And, hey, it's just small stuff, it's not like it's a million dollars. I should be able to ignore my moral instincts when they make me uncomfortable."
One might well ask whether (1) I actually think stealing is wrong (2) I actually care about being a moral person.
Stealing is a moral issue -- eating less meat isn't. Would it be better from an environmental standpoint to eat no meat? Sure. But reducing consumption is still a positive.
|
|
Your post could just have easily been about stealing or gambling or premarital sex or beating your kids or not beating your kids.
Jeez.
Anyho, don't worry, I don't take offense at your words.
I will point out that there is a major difference between all the immoral activities you mentioned (let's pretend for a moment that you never pointed out premarital sex in the same sentence as child beating) - all the other stuff you mentioned are "active, personal crimes" while the wrongs I was trying to discuss were more the "passive, universal" ones.
I'll try to explain -
active: when you actively do something wrong. For example, steal from someone or hurt someone
personal: you were the one committing the crime, not just the one benefiting from it.
passive: when what you "do wrong" is not fighting against something you perceive as wrong. For example, not going to that rally protest against abuse of immigrants even when you believe they should be treated with more humanity.
universal: basically 99% of humanity around you is doing the wrong that bothers you. Same example holds - seeing an entire 1% of a countries' population in a rally protest for immigrants would be a shock in most places in the world.
So, vegetarianism, money donation, social activism, volunteering etc. are all things that, when most of us will be asked, will be considered moral acts. Meaning that, by choosing not to do them, we knowingly chose the less moral path. I'm not saying it's *immoral* per say, but most of us can agree that it's not "quite as moral". Unlike violence to children or theft, "not donating money" is not exactly a crime, it's just a not-very-nice thing that most of us do. And even those who donate could theoretically always share more.
Some of us do chose to go down a certain length down any of these paths. If we'll come back to my personal example, some people who abstain from all meat get the title "vegetarians". Even though some of them think/know that eating eggs and milk has basically the same moral problems as eating meat, they still eat those. Because they are not willing to go that extra mile, because it will cause to much discomfort in their lives.
Now let's take me - I'm an almost vegetarian. I eat meat on very rare occasions. Could probably count the number of times per year on my fingers, if I had the will to do so. However, I am not a full vegetarian - and for the exact same reasons that most vegetarians are not full vegans. And for some reason, I noticed that I get called out on it more than non-vegan vegetarians do. But what we are doing is essentially the same - we each found are personal balance point, that sweet spot where we don't feel like we are giving away too much but still feel that we are doing enough.
So I will ask again - do you see what I am doing as essentially different from full vegetarianism? If so, how?
To be clear - I don't believe half measures are legitimate in active crimes, of course. Beating a child is never ok, never matter the intensity of it. Stealing is always wrong (unless you are wearing green caps and tights, and only steal from the reach to give to the poor).
|
|
'Half measure' is defined by where you are in the continuum, I suppose. To a hard core practitioner of ahimsa, even the more extreme examples of vegetarianism might be seen as 'half-measures,' at best, if they don't include a decision to do no harm in other ways.
Diet is a bigger continuum than most. Western cultures still eat a fair number of omnivores (such as pig, chicken, bear, lobster), as well as the usual herbivores (sheep, cows, deer, etc.), but have increasingly turned away from eating purely carnivorous animals (with a few exceptions, such as tuna). And, generally speaking, we don't eat other people. Various organ meats are avoided as well, for various reasons, some health related, some 'ick' related. (Brains, gonads, etc.)
So even the non-vegetarians have ethical (or practical, or just 'ick') limits on what sorts of meats we'll shove into our gob. Sometimes our justifications for not eating something are as simple as 'I don't like brussel sprouts / pork belly / liver / whatever.' And that's a valid choice, too.
If any one person wants to draw the line somewhere else, and only eat 'kosher' meat, or avoid the meat of scavengers like pigs and lobsters, or only eat farm-raised grass-fed free-range animals, or only buy locally sourced foods to support their community, that's not really any more or less personal a choice (or more or less absurd, or more or less a drop in the bucket that isn't likely to change the world) than my choice not to eat human flesh or goat testicles or wriggling insect larvae or whatever.
Indeed, the vegetarian, or 'mostly vegetarian,' or 'vegetarian, but eats fish' types have *more* of a coherent argument for their dietary choices than I do for not eating maggots, as the sum total of my super-complex moral / ethical / philosophical rationale for not eating maggots is 'Aaahh! Get them away from me!'
I can understand Vegetarianism, even Veganism. What I don't understand is this Vegetarian Chicken Ham
Lamyong Vegetarian Ham is a tasty and convenient vegetarian food ingredient loved by all in the family! Comes in 3 different flavours, Original, “Chicken” and “Bacon”.
If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, why do you need meat flavored products?
|
|
If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, why do you need meat flavored products?
Why does anyone need *anything* flavored products? Wouldn't flavorless gruel be perfectly adequate to live on?
Maybe, like chocolate, there doesn't have to be any sort of deep reason (or necessity to justify) why some people like the taste of chocolate.
If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, why do you need meat flavored products?Why does anyone need *anything* flavored products? Wouldn't flavorless gruel be perfectly adequate to live on?
Maybe, like chocolate, there doesn't have to be any sort of deep reason (or necessity to justify) why some people like the taste of chocolate.
How about vegetable flavored food? I don't try to make my steak taste like asparagus, nor Carnivore Asparagus Tomatoes.
|
|
How about vegetable flavored food? I don't try to make my steak taste like asparagus, nor Carnivore Asparagus Tomatoes.
You've never had sausage or steak with peppers and onions? A little black pepper on your eggs? A little chocolate in your milk? Never put ketchup or mustard or other vegetable-based flavorings on a burger or hot dog? Barbecue sauce on those ribs?
Given how many seasonings are based on plants, you'd probably have a harder time finding meals made with meat that *aren't* 'vegetable flavored' in some way.
Thanks to salt, a lot of meat is also 'mineral flavored,' and it's not like we eat a lot of rocks.
Why is it any weirder, in a world where we flavor much of our meat with vegetables and minerals, for a vegetarian to like the taste of bacon?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
passive: when what you "do wrong" is not fighting against something you perceive as wrong. For example, not going to that rally protest against abuse of immigrants even when you believe they should be treated with more humanity.
You can't right all the world's wrongs. You have to choose what's important to you and fight those fights. You just don't live long enough to fight every fight.
Why not just stop calling yourself a "nearly-vegan" and explain that you eat meat "every-once-in-a-while" or "whenever you get a craving"? By claiming to be a vegan, people get an expectation. When you only go halfway or part-way, people wonder: "why bother?" That's when criticism begins. The more we try to label humanity, the more we break through the lines. I eat meat. Probably more than I should, but that's me. If you only eat meat once or twice a year, that's fantastic for you. As long as you aren't pushing your ideals on others or are harassing those who eat more meat than you, it should be fine.