• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

If you really wanted to go vegetarian, I'd recommend picking up some Chinese and other asian textbooks; they have a lot of variety for vegetarians, given that a good majority of their numbers are Buddhist.

Well, I don't want to anymore, but I would certainly agree with you for anyone who does. I'm actually quite well versed in both Korean and Japanese cooking, having lived and worked in both those countries, and you are right that both cuisines include a wide array of tasty veggie dishes. OTOH, they're both really good with meat, too! :)
 
That's a pretty roundabout way of assumption. If I'm a vegan, can't I say that I love fish even though I don't eat it? It all seems entirely based on assumptions that they would never have eaten fish all their life. Also, the suggestion seems to be that Buddhist priests eating meat on a rare basis seems to mean that they would necessarily be healthier.

I'd rather rely on a far more direct poll.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't want to anymore, but I would certainly agree with you for anyone who does. I'm actually quite well versed in both Korean and Japanese cooking, having lived and worked in both those countries, and you are right that both cuisines include a wide array of tasty veggie dishes. OTOH, they're both really good with meat, too! :)

Hey, what's good garnishing for the goose, is good garnishing for the gander.
 
Hey, what's good garnishing for the goose, is good garnishing for the gander.

Nearly every year I have a large group of friends and family over for xmas dinner; I roast a whole goose and garnish it with a chestnut and pork-fennel sausage dressing. Wonderful!
 
The problem is this: were such argument offered in support of any other activity, belief or behaviour, they'd be laughed out of town on this board. "Everyone else does it" and "It makes me feel better" are both fallacious arguments; they're bad arguments, even if they're true. Supporting behaviours that have quantifiably negative consequences with what strike me as rather limp arguments seems really to only ever be justifiable round here in discussions about diet.

This is exactly how I perceive it as well. I'm a newbie, but I have had several chances of witnessing some members who's posts I well respect and admire in some subjects, become no better than an emotionally tainted fanatic when it comes to diet. What's even more strange is that I must say most of this kind of posting seems to come from people defending and/or even reveling in their meat eating. Only human, but still strange on a critical thinking based forum...the local vegetarians, vegans and omnivores with a main emphasis on plants seem to hold their cool a lot longer than the hardcore meat eaters (just check out this thread as a small example).
 
Last edited:
Well , eating is not something where we do always rationaly act. Quite a good part of eating is based on taste, visual pleasure and pleasure of all sort.

Now what I call vegetarian "believer" come and says eating meat has some negative effect. So what ? Eating is not 100% utilitarian at least in our part of the world, and taking it as a 100% utilitarian things which is only rationaly based FAIL.

This is the equivalent of saying dark clothes are bad because you can't see people at night. So let us change the world and force people to get light colored clothes.
Sure there might be advantage to it, but that would be considering only the utilitarian approach.

This is doomed to fail for an activity which is not 100% utilitarian.

And I won't enter the part of the debate where really the perceived disadvantage of meat really warrant trying to change people mind, because as far as I can tell, both side (vegetarian and omnivore) have a tendence to be both really fanatic on their eating habits and underestimate the disadvantage on both side, and overestimate the advantge. That said I would rather support the omnivore. Why ? FREEDOM of CHOICE. You can be a vegetarian in an omnivore world. You cannot be omnivore when you are in a vegetarian world. That free dom is enough to warrant letting the free market decide what should be produced or what should not.
 
Raw grass must taste good to you, and apparently your digestive tract must be far different than the rest of mankind's if you can extract necessary nutrients from it.

~Dr. Imago

If that where all that animals slaughtered for meat ate you might have a point, in fact if that was the majority of what they ate you might have a point, being that this is not the case . . . you have no point.
 
This is exactly how I perceive it as well. I'm a newbie, but I have had several chances of witnessing some members who's posts I well respect and admire in some subjects, become no better than an emotionally tainted fanatic when it comes to diet. What's even more strange is that I must say most of this kind of posting seems to come from people defending and/or even reveling in their meat eating. Only human, but still strange on a critical thinking based forum...the local vegetarians, vegans and omnivores with a main emphasis on plants seem to hold their cool a lot longer than the hardcore meat eaters (just check out this thread as a small example).

Why do you think it's strange for people to enjoy what they eat, and to include that enjoyment as part of a rational assessment of the value of certain dietary choices?
 
Why do you think it's strange for people to enjoy what they eat, and to include that enjoyment as part of a rational assessment of the value of certain dietary choices?

I don't think anyone's quite suggesting such a thing.

Why do you imagine your analysis is entirely rational? You weigh up animal rights against your own happiness and the effects of your lack of it on others. Well, in that analysis, have you taken into account:

What it was, exactly that made you unhappy when you were vegetarian? To simply say being vegetarian makes you unhappy would be to simplify things. What aspects of being vegetarian made you unhappy, and importantly, is it possible they could have been catered for by means other than a return to meat-eating?

For instance, some vegetarians might be unhappy because they eat a diet of mainly salad and are hungry all the time. They might welcome a return to meat-eating, when in fact changing to eating good filling meals such as a variety of vegetarian pasta bakes and brown rice dishes might make them feel much better.

Or they might feel lonely because they can't go out with their friends to the steak house any more so they welcome a return to meat-eating, when in reality there are a few good vegetarian restaurants in the neighbourhood and it might turn out that their friends consider it a real treat to be invited to them and enjoy the menus.

Some vegetarians might crave meat because they simply miss the taste of it, so they might welcome a return to meat-eating, when in reality there are meat substitutes now that can be flavoured to taste exactly like meat, so they could eat those instead.

And so on.

Was a return to meat-eating really the only alternative you felt you had?

If there are other alternatives, you're weighing a false assessment against the rights of animals. I also question your assertion that you have now concluded that moral concerns about them are "bogus". I'll give you an illustration of the kind of thing you're saying is less important in your rational calculations than the effect your unhappiness will have on others. If there is genuinely no alternative option so vegetarianism would make you unhappy no matter what, then maybe you're making a fair assessment. But if there are alternatives, can you really justify meat-eating on the grounds you do?

At least you're honest about animal rights being less important to you, instead of condemning vegetarians as holier-than-thou for even suggesting such a thing should come into the equasion, as some meat-eaters appear to do. Nevertheless, I'll give you an example of what you're weighing your perceived emotional well-being against:

****Gruesomeness alert****

In my post earlier in this thread about health and safety conditions in slaughterhouses ... *anyone who reads it should ignore my blatant display of opponent-mocking and obnoxious over-use of smilies at the beginning ... unless they're one of those meat-eaters who wanted to disrupt this thread I was mocking of course, in which case, ... consider yourself to have been duely mocked* ... but in that post, I quote things that go into quite a bit of detail about health and safety issues. One thing I linked to but didn't quote because it was so horrible, was a gruesome description of what can happen when pigs are killed in slaughterhouses. I'll quote from the article now. Can you honestly say that concerns to prevent more of this kind of thing are "bogus", or that in an entirely rational assessment that takes into account several angles on the issue, such considerations have to take second place to your perceived emotional well-being?

From an article from Wikipedia: Animal welfare concerns

For her book Slaughterhouse, Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association (HFA), interviewed slaughterhouse workers in the U.S. who say that, because of the speed with which they are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while apparently alive, and still blinking, kicking, and shrieking. Eisnitz argues that this is not only cruel to the animals, but also dangerous for the human workers, as cows weighing several thousands
of pounds thrashing around in pain are likely to kick out and debilitate anyone working near them.

According to the HFA, Eiznitz interviewed slaughterhouse workers representing over two million hours of experience, who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, or have failed to report those who do. The workers described the effects the violence has had on their personal lives, with several admitting to being physically abusive or taking to alcohol and other drugs.

The HFA alleges that workers are required to kill up to 1,100 hogs an hour, and end up taking their frustration out on the animals.

Eisnitz interviewed one worker, who had worked in ten slaughterhouses, about pig production. He told her:

Code:
Hogs get stressed out pretty easy. If you prod them too much, they have heart attacks. If you get a hog in the chute that's had the **** prodded out of him and has a heart attack or refuses to move, you take a meat hook and hook it into his bunghole. You try to do this by clipping the hipbone. Then you drag him backwards. You're dragging these hogs alive, and a lot of times the meat hook rips out of the bunghole. I've seen hams — thighs — completely ripped open. I've also seen intestines come out. If the hog collapses near the front of the chute, you shove the meat hook into his cheek and drag him forward.

One thing I thought was an interesting insight in your first post about your vegetarianism though was what you said about mustering up a sense of superiority to meat-eaters to compensate for your unhappiness. I wonder how much that goes on.
 
...
Why do you imagine your analysis is entirely rational?

Why do you 'imagine' that it may not be so?

You weigh up animal rights against your own happiness and the effects of your lack of it on others. Well, in that analysis, have you taken into account:

What it was, exactly that made you unhappy when you were vegetarian?

In my earlier post, I described exactly what it was that made me unhappy. A loss of a sense of collegiality that I get from sharing meat with other meat-eaters, and a loss of pleasure that I get specifically from eating meat--a pleasure which is noticeable even with very low quality meat, and that intensifies exponentially with increase in quality of the meat. Properly prepared A5 grade Kobe Wagyu steak is nearly narcotic in the intensity of pleasure it provides me. It's a good thing it costs so much (the finest cuts--those with a marble score of 12--can go for $1500/pound) or I would certainly die of gluttony.

To simply say being vegetarian makes you unhappy would be to simplify things. What aspects of being vegetarian made you unhappy, and importantly, is it possible they could have been catered for by means other than a return to meat-eating?

The most intense vegetarian pleasure I've experienced is from Perigord Truffles. They are as pleasurable as many very fine meats. Unfortunately, they are as expensive as the aforementioned A5 Kobe. I can afford to eat one or the other maybe once every 3 or 4 years. Truffles have other drawbacks, though, as well: They are so pungent that I really can't eat more than a few grams at a time without getting sick. They don't really complement other vegetables very well--though they have a truly synergistic effect on fine meat; they're far more difficult to obtain than good meat; they're not particularly fun to cook; even though the flavour and aroma are wonderful, they're completely missing the tactile and textural pleasures which meat provides.

The second most vivid pleasure I get outside the Animal Kingdom comes from homegrown heirloom tomatoes. I eat these every day when they're in season, and if I had to live without them I think I would experience very near the same sense of loss I got from giving up meat. But they're already a part of my diet in great quantity when they're available--which is only a couple of months during the year, so they'll never be able to substitute for the meat in my diet. I've tried growing them indoors during other times of year, but the results are always disappointing. (As a side note, I'm wondering: has anyone else ever noticed that the flavour of a fresh vine-ripened tomato degrades remarkably within just a few hours of picking the fruit from the living plant? Someday I've got to set up a double-blind taste test to see if I'm right about this, or if my personal experience is just delusional).


For instance, some vegetarians might be unhappy because they eat a diet of mainly salad and are hungry all the time. They might welcome a return to meat-eating, when in fact changing to eating good filling meals such as a variety of vegetarian pasta bakes and brown rice dishes might make them feel much better.

Vegetarian food can be quite good. I'm a former chef, with considerable experience catering to vegetarians, and I have no difficulty preparing exceptional food without meat.

OTOH, although I don't get the opportunity nearly as often as I'd wish, I love to kill and butcher my own meat. Satisfying blood lust is a luxury of the highest order for me. I suppose if I really wanted to remain vegetarian I could continue to experience this by killing animals and not eating them afterwards, but that seems wasteful to me.

I guess there must be some measure of cognitive dissonance at play here, since I certainly recognize that it's immoral to take pleasure in killing, but the pleasure is there nonetheless, and it really can be quite intoxicating. Maybe I could substitute opium or some other drug for this feeling, but drugs have other drawbacks.

There's also the gestalt of tearing flesh with canine teeth, gnawing muscle and connective tissue from a rib, or sucking the soft marrow from the center of a veal shank. If there's a way to simulate these experiences with vegetarian cuisine, I've never heard of it. I'm certainly open to suggestions.


Or they might feel lonely because they can't go out with their friends to the steak house any more so they welcome a return to meat-eating, when in reality there are a few good vegetarian restaurants in the neighbourhood and it might turn out that their friends consider it a real treat to be invited to them and enjoy the menus.

I have not stopped frequenting my favourite vegetarian restaurants. Some are excellent, and I've even once or twice surprised other meat eaters by pointing out after a truly satisfying meal that we'd not had any meat with it--the food was so good they didn't even notice. Unfortunately, although I do love them, they're simply not in the same league as my favourite barbecue joints, and although I've been around the world twice and lived in several countries--always avidly exploring the diversity of cuisines available wherever I go, I have never found any vegetarian cuisine anywhere that approaches the luxury of the finest teppanyaki or sushi. Also, really good vegetarian restaurants truly are a lot more difficult to find than comparable omnivorous establishments, and the bad ones make even McDonald's food look grand by comparison.

Some vegetarians might crave meat because they simply miss the taste of it, so they might welcome a return to meat-eating, when in reality there are meat substitutes now that can be flavoured to taste exactly like meat, so they could eat those instead.

I've tried such substitutes. Some really can fool even a devout meat-eater--in certain contexts. Generally, this only works in dishes where the texture of a meat is not in the foreground, however. However, the texture/tactile pleasures of great meat far, far outweigh the flavour in importance. So this argument is a non-starter for me.

Was a return to meat-eating really the only alternative you felt you had?

Yes.

If there are other alternatives, you're weighing a false assessment against the rights of animals. I also question your assertion that you have now concluded that moral concerns about them are "bogus". I'll give you an illustration of the kind of thing you're saying is less important in your rational calculations than the effect your unhappiness will have on others. If there is genuinely no alternative option so vegetarianism would make you unhappy no matter what, then maybe you're making a fair assessment. But if there are alternatives, can you really justify meat-eating on the grounds you do?

I'm certainly open to the possibility that there may be alternatives which provide the same level and diversity of pleasure I get from eating meat. If they exist, I've not found them. But I'll eat almost anything that isn't poisonous, and even a few things that are, so I welcome whatever suggestions you have.



At least you're honest about animal rights being less important to you, instead of condemning vegetarians as holier-than-thou for even suggesting such a thing should come into the equasion, as some meat-eaters appear to do.

I agree with you here; and I'll even admit to occasionall--and hypocritically--engaging in the crassness you see in some other meat eaters. The thing is, when I was vegan, I really did feel 'holier-than-thou' disdain for meat eaters, and I'm embarrassed to admit it.



Nevertheless, I'll give you an example of what you're weighing your perceived emotional well-being against:

****Gruesomeness alert****

<snip>

Yeah, slaughterhouses can be quite gruesome. I have several family members that work in slaughterhouses, and the stories they tell can give you nightmares. I view this as an argument to enact, and enforce, stricter regulations--not to stop eating meat. It's certainly possible to raise and slaughter animals humanely--it just costs more (actually, sometimes it costs less--see Dr. Temple Grandin's work in making slaughterhouses run more efficiently by removing things that frighten cows and being sympathetic to their feelings). But you're talking to someone who will occasionally take out a bank loan to buy a cut of beyond-prime Matsuzaka beef. Making meat cost more is perfectly acceptable to me, though I don't fault people who'd rather not, or cannot, pay more.


One thing I thought was an interesting insight in your first post about your vegetarianism though was what you said about mustering up a sense of superiority to meat-eaters to compensate for your unhappiness. I wonder how much that goes on.

I don't know, really. I've heard only a small handful of other people admit to similar insights, and quite a few vegetarians I know vehemently insist that their own experience is otherwise. Still, when dealing with human emotions of this sort, hidden biases are legion, and the truth can be quite difficult to ferret out.
 
Prometheus said:
I agree with you here; and I'll even admit to occasionall--and hypocritically--engaging in the crassness you see in some other meat eaters. The thing is, when I was vegan, I really did feel 'holier-than-thou' disdain for meat eaters, and I'm embarrassed to admit it.

That's interesting. I wondered if meat-eaters who said such people existed were just making it up/putting their own biased interpretations on the interactions they'd had; but now I know such people really do exist. Thanks.

Prometheus said:
OTOH, although I don't get the opportunity nearly as often as I'd wish, I love to kill and butcher my own meat. Satisfying blood lust is a luxury of the highest order for me. I suppose if I really wanted to remain vegetarian I could continue to experience this by killing animals and not eating them afterwards, but that seems wasteful to me.

I guess there must be some measure of cognitive dissonance at play here, since I certainly recognize that it's immoral to take pleasure in killing, but the pleasure is there nonetheless, and it really can be quite intoxicating. Maybe I could substitute opium or some other drug for this feeling, but drugs have other drawbacks.

Why do you think you get intense pleasure from killing?
 
Why do you think it's strange for people to enjoy what they eat, and to include that enjoyment as part of a rational assessment of the value of certain dietary choices?

Hmm... maybe I wasn't clear enough, because that's not what I meant. I was trying to say I think it's strange that here, on these forums, some posters who seem superbly adequate in critical thinking in various other subjects seem to lack that skill when it comes to discussing their diet. And that here, on these forums, it seems to be only the 'meat-defenders' who are behaving this way. Of course, if there were more vegetarian or vegan posters, it might well be we'd see the same kind of conduct from some of them. In the real world I know fanatics on both sides. It's only these forums I'm wondering about. Does this clear my POW?

Also, I think 'enjoyment as part of a rational assessment of the value of certain choices' (regarding diet or anything else) doesn't necessarily mean an incapability to rationally think and discuss the topic from other points of view than that of your own enjoyment. Do you agree?
 
Now what I call vegetarian "believer" come and says eating meat has some negative effect. So what ? Eating is not 100% utilitarian at least in our part of the world, and taking it as a 100% utilitarian things which is only rationaly based FAIL.

This is the equivalent of saying dark clothes are bad because you can't see people at night. So let us change the world and force people to get light colored clothes.
Sure there might be advantage to it, but that would be considering only the utilitarian approach.

This is doomed to fail for an activity which is not 100% utilitarian.

And I won't enter the part of the debate where really the perceived disadvantage of meat really warrant trying to change people mind, because as far as I can tell, both side (vegetarian and omnivore) have a tendence to be both really fanatic on their eating habits and underestimate the disadvantage on both side, and overestimate the advantge. That said I would rather support the omnivore. Why ? FREEDOM of CHOICE. You can be a vegetarian in an omnivore world. You cannot be omnivore when you are in a vegetarian world. That free dom is enough to warrant letting the free market decide what should be produced or what should not.

Good points. However, as I understood the OP, vegetarianism or simply reducing the use of meat can be argued to be beneficial to the whole of humankind (not even mentioning the environment or other animals). So I'd say it's a bit different than your 'dark clothes' analogue.

I'm very pro-choice, but as stated before in this thread, I also believe in setting boundaries to individual actions that can be proven to have negative effects on others. So, regarding eating meat, my personal utopian world would be a place where everyone would have the freedom of choice to eat a limited amount of meat.
 
That's interesting. I wondered if meat-eaters who said such people existed were just making it up/putting their own biased interpretations on the interactions they'd had; but now I know such people really do exist. Thanks.

Sorry to butt in, but what you've been doing by posting things like your "gruesomeness alert" (which by the way looks the same as "pro-lifers" showing gory images of aborted foetuses) is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes vegetarians/vegans extremely tiresome, to say the least ...

There are plenty of valid arguments for eating less meat, especially in the industrialised world, from health considerations* to animal welfare** to environmental issues***, to social issues****, but I'm pretty sure that that kind of emotional blackmail is counter productive.

I'm not vegetarian, and don't have any conscience pang about it, but I favor eating small quantities of animal based proteins from local producers as much as possible, for the above reasons.

* Japanese and Okinawans have been mentionned: they are omnivore (actually, finding real vegetarian food outside of buddhist temples restaurants is pretty hard in Japan), but don't eat red meat very often nor in the kind of quantity we're used to, and it shows in their general health and longevity.

** There's a lot of abuses in the way animals are raised, fed, transported and killed, and we should favor locally raised and pasture fed animals as much as possible.

*** There's no doubt that intensive/industrial animal farming is deleterious to the environment (water pollution, methane, etc.).

**** monopolies on water and land for industrial/intensive farming in third world countries, for example.
 
Sorry to butt in, but what you've been doing by posting things like your "gruesomeness alert" (which by the way looks the same as "pro-lifers" showing gory images of aborted foetuses) is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes vegetarians/vegans extremely tiresome, to say the least ...

There are plenty of valid arguments for eating less meat, especially in the industrialised world, from health considerations* to animal welfare** to environmental issues***, to social issues****, but I'm pretty sure that that kind of emotional blackmail is counter productive.

I'm not vegetarian, and don't have any conscience pang about it, but I favor eating small quantities of animal based proteins from local producers as much as possible, for the above reasons.

* Japanese and Okinawans have been mentionned: they are omnivore (actually, finding real vegetarian food outside of buddhist temples restaurants is pretty hard in Japan), but don't eat red meat very often nor in the kind of quantity we're used to, and it shows in their general health and longevity.

** There's a lot of abuses in the way animals are raised, fed, transported and killed, and we should favor locally raised and pasture fed animals as much as possible.

*** There's no doubt that intensive/industrial animal farming is deleterious to the environment (water pollution, methane, etc.).

**** monopolies on water and land for industrial/intensive farming in third world countries, for example.

Excellent, a resident of France. The home of rational cuisine IMHO.
 
Excellent, a resident of France. The home of rational cuisine IMHO.


Huh ! You've never had to go through a traditional christmas family dinner consisting mostly of lard fried in butter, with just enough vegetables (hash brown with onions fried in suet) as a token to "good nutrition" ... ;)
 
Huh ! You've never had to go through a traditional christmas family dinner consisting mostly of lard fried in butter, with just enough vegetables (hash brown with onions fried in suet) as a token to "good nutrition" ... ;)

You forgot the red vegetable juice in the glass in front of you and of course the exercise after christmas lunch tossing around those iron ball thingy's.
 
Okay, so maybe Japan and Okinawa aren't great examples. But I do know that it's quite easy to get your hands on vegetarian cuisine in Singapore, as I have a friend there, and Singapore still rates #4 in life expectancy (according to the CIA world factbook)
 
Last edited:
Flo said:
Sorry to butt in, but what you've been doing by posting things like your "gruesomeness alert" (which by the way looks the same as "pro-lifers" showing gory
images of aborted foetuses) is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes vegetarians/vegans extremely tiresome, to say the least ...

There are plenty of valid arguments for eating less meat, especially in the industrialised world, from health considerations* to animal welfare** to environmental
issues***, to social issues****, but I'm pretty sure that that kind of emotional blackmail is counter productive.

You confuse the intent of the information with the impact it had on you. In other words, just because someone puts something like that on a message board, it does not mean they have an intent to emotionally blackmail. If you feel emotionally put-upon, don't make the mistake of assuming it was their intention that you should. The likelihood is that they would have no idea what emotional impact it would have on you. How could they? Your emotions are caused by your own reactions, not by anyone else.

Even if they did want you to feel some emotion, it is fallacious to attribute the motive of intent to emotionally blackmail to them. You cannot reasonably know their motive, unless they have told you what it is. After all, journalists appeal to emotion all the time when reporting on a story they hope will raise consumer awareness of an issue. For instance, in a report on abuse in old people's homes, they will not simply discuss the basics of the information in a dry way, but will include stories of specific individuals who've been affected. They do it to get people's attention and interest. Is that "emotional blackmail"?

And some subjects inevitably raise emotions - the only way to stop them doing it would be to censor the discussion of them. The issue of what goes on in slaughterhouses is a case in point. How could you discuss the details of that in a purely non-emotional way? You'd simply have to leave details out. Is that really desireable?

Is there really and truly any rational reason for keeping the discussion of what goes on in slaughterhouses and such things out of discussions? Should such material really be hidden just to ensure meat-eaters don't have their sensibilities offended? Really, where is the logic in doing that?

Take other issues. Would you feel the same way?:

In a discussion of medical options for the treatment of cancer, would you suggest that it would be ethical to hide the unpleasant details of each option just in case the sensibilities of those who hold one view or another are offended? Would it be ethical, for example, for a person who'd had chemotherapy and felt thoroughly nauseous to hide those details? Or would it be more in the interests of informed choice if a full and frank discussion of such issues were to be allowed to take place, where, because someone related how sick they'd been, someone else might have the opportunity to recommend things that could reduce the amount of nausea a person undergoing chemotherapy might feel, just as in this discussion, Prometheus responded not by condemning me for quoting the information about what goes on in slaughterhouses, but by acknowledging that there was indeed a problem, but saying he thought much greater regulation could solve many of the problems.

In a discussion of having a baby, should someone who would like to hold forth on how it was a terrible idea - they'd tried it and ended up with post-natal depression, and couldn't sleep for months, and now was exhausted all the time - should someone like that keep quiet, because it might offend the sensibilities of people who actually wanted to have babies? Or should they be allowed to speak unhindered, which might allow people who'd already had babies to comfort them that things wouldn't be like that forever, and to encourage them by talking about how the first year had been difficult for them too, but now they were getting a lot of fulfilment out of their child?

In a discussion of how healthy fish was for people, If someone had a cautionary tale to tell about how they'd once been to the seaside with their family and some of them had seen a sewage outlet with fish all congregating around it as if they just loved the sewage, should they keep quiet, so as not to give fish-lovers cause to think twice about whether they should be eating so much? Or would it in fact be better to have a frank and open discussion, where someone might put forward a counter-argument that might persuade the audience that it wasn't all that bad really to have fish eating sewage? This did in fact happen on this board. It was myself who mentioned the sewage incident, and someone else who put the counter-point. I'll quote:

From this page - the conversation begins at post 1593.

Baby Nemesis said:
JimBenArm said:
True story:
When I was serving on the USS Pollack, a new guy reported aboard. Back in those days, we could blow sanitaries directly overboard (the poo tanks, basically). Naturally, some of the stuff would float, and the local marine life would enjoy munching on it. ...

How disgusting! But then, my mum and younger sister were walking along by the seaside one day, and came across a sewage outlet. And there, crowded around it, were loads of fish. They seemed to love it!

It's recommended by health experts that people eat fish about twice a week.

Myriad said:
Excrement is largely composed of bacteria, some of which are kinds that are not particularly good for us (at least, not if they get into our upper digestive tract where they don't belong), hence the "ewww." However, if fish can eat that bacteria and turn it into yummy fish protein, how is that a bad thing? Is that any worse than using excrement to fertilize plants that grow yummy fruits and vegetables?

Should such a conversation never have been allowed to take place in case it upset fish-eaters?

Do you see my point?

Your reaction to my quote about slaughterhouses is precisely the kind of reason I was doubtful as to whether holier-than-thou vegetarians really existed, and wondered if the phenomenon was in fact merely an imaginary construct, built on the emotional reaction of the meat-eater themselves being confronted with the information who was offended at hearing it, and made the mistake of thinking their feelings were actually being caused by the vegetarian in question, rather than being generated by their own minds. As I said to someone else a couple of days ago:

Yes, and often, people might assume a person who's expressing concern simply wants to feel a sense of moral superiority over others, because ... well, who knows. Perhaps what the other person's saying sometimes pricks their conscience and it's their own feelings that make them feel put-upon because they don't want to hear the message, but they blame the person putting it forward. Perhaps the person putting the message forward is simply doing it with fervour/strength of feeling, and that's mistaken for a superior attitude. Perhaps the person listening to the message came across someone in the past who did genuinely have a morally superior attitude, and they judge all people with that message from that time forth as having one. Perhaps the person who puts the message forward makes a few jokes about trying to make everyone change their minds, and the person judging the message thinks they're being serious.

You make an irrational judgment if you think my "Gruesomeness alert" warning was meant to torment meat-eaters. It was in fact meant to do the exact opposite - to warn people the quote was coming in order to give them the opportunity to skim over it if they had a weak stomach!

You see how something a person says can be so badly misinterpreted? So I wondered if the whole "There are some obnoxious vegetarians out there who want to guilt-trip me" thing that some meat-eaters seem to have was simply a product of whole chains of just such misinterpretations.

For the record, I myself am not entirely vegetarian. I do eat some meat. Thus, an accusation against me of having a holier-than-thou attitude to meat-eaters would be ignorant, and made in the absence of any attempt to glean the facts first before coming to a judgment.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom