Vegetarianism

[Just thinking]

No, I'm saying you're conflating "avoiding meat" with "avoiding the taste/texture of meat".

Not at all --- I understand the difference well. I even made note of it several times.

If someone wants to avoid foods they consider unethical, then they may become a vegetarian/vegan on those grounds. If there is a product that looks and tastes like meat but isn't meat, why would you expect them to avoid it?

Because it resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"?

On the other hand, I do know people who avoid meat because they don't like the taste. They're hardly going to be thrilled by faux-meat because in their case, the taste/texture actually IS what they're avoiding.

Really, it's not that hard to understand...

I guess not for everyone.

 

[icerat]

Because it resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"?

Vegetarians who don't eat meat for ethical reasons don't find meat objectionable, they find the way it's produced objectionable.

Similarly vegetarians who don't eat meat for health reasons don't find meat objectionable, they find it's negative health impacts objectionable.

When I'm eating a lasagne based on fat-free Quorn mince, which I find virtually indistinguishable from a "meat" lasagne, I don't sit there stressing about the high saturated fat content of regular mince meat.

 

[Just thinking]

Huh? I don't follow at all what you are saying here. Which makes me suspect that I and others replying to you are not following what you are saying.

Many peope chose a diet cola over regular cola because they want to avoid the calories. If regular cola didn't have the calorie problem, they'd still drink it because they prefer the taste.

Bingo. That's exactly what I believe as well.

And that in no way is equivalent to those choosing to avoid meat ... because it is meat itself they are avoiding. Not its fat content, calorie content or whatever else. They will not eat low calorie meat and still claim vegetarianism, right? So how can you use the no-calorie soda as an equivalent, when that is exactly why most of those who drink it do so?

 

[Just thinking]

Vegetarians who don't eat meat for ethical reasons don't find meat objectionable, they find the way it's produced objectionable.

And how high a percentage of vegetarians do you think fall into that category?

Plus, upon further thinking, that statement you made seems somewhat contradictory. How can eating meat in and of itself remain non-objectionable if its production is objectionable? In other words, how can you have meat without it being produced?

 

[icerat]

And that in no way is equivalent to those choosing to avoid meat ... because it is meat itself they are avoiding. Not its fat content, calorie content or whatever else.

Well this is where you've got it wrong. Vegetarians avoid meat for lots of reasons. None of which are the circular "because it's meat".

They will not eat low calorie meat and still claim vegetarianism, right? So how can you use the no-calorie soda as an equivalent, when that is exactly why most of those who drink it do so?

Without wanting to offend, are you serious about this conversation or are you just trolling, cause frankly you're not making a lot of sense.

Do you believe people who want to avoid calories in cola should not drink diet cola because it "resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"? "

 

[icerat]

And how high a percentage of vegetarians do you think fall into that category?

The vast majority I expect.

Plus, upon further thinking, that statement you made seems somewhat contradictory. How can eating meat in and of itself remain non-objectionable of its production is objectionable? In other words, how can you have meat without it being produced?

Do you understand that "production" and "method of production" are not the same thing? You can have one method being objectionable and not another. I for example avoid eating eggs from caged factory farmed chickens, but more than happy to eat them from free range. Both are "produced", but different methods.

 

[Just thinking]

Do you believe people who want to avoid calories in cola should not drink diet cola because it "resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"? "

I equate vegetarianism (the avoidance of eating meat) with the avoidance of drinking soda. You are equating vegetarianism with merely drinking low calorie (diet) soda. To me, this would be choosing low calorie/ low fat meat instead of higher content meats. See the difference?

 

[Just thinking]

Do you understand that "production" and "method of production" are not the same thing? You can have one method being objectionable and not another. I for example avoid eating eggs from caged factory farmed chickens, but more than happy to eat them from free range. Both are "produced", but different methods.

Yes.

Are there then any production methods that this vast majority would allow to happen that would change their eating habbits?

 

[icerat]

You are equating vegetarianism with merely drinking low calorie (diet) soda.

No I'm not, not even close.

I'm equating avoiding diet cola because it's like regular cola with avoiding meat substitutes because they're like regular meat.

Are there then any production methods that this vast majority would allow to happen that would change their eating habbits?

Of meat? Sure. My fiancee is a vegetarian primarily for ethical reasons. She'd be more than happy to eat in-vitro meat if/when it becomes a realistic option, since those ethical objections are removed.

ETA: and she's more than happy to eat meat substititues like Quorn since those ethical objections are removed.

 

[Just thinking]

No I'm not, not even close.

I'm equating avoiding diet cola because it's like regular cola with avoiding meat substitutes because they're like regular meat.

And that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Of meat? Sure. My fiancee is a vegetarian primarily for ethical reasons. She'd be more than happy to eat in-vitro meat if/when it becomes a realistic option, since those ethical reasons are removed.

From your link ... Several current research projects are growing in vitro meat experimentally, although no meat has yet been produced for public consumption.

So basically, there are no existing methods.

 

[icerat]

And that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Yes it does, since diet cola would "resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"?

By your way of thinking, diet cola should not be an option.

So basically, there are no existing methods.

The method exists, it's just not commercially viable. In the meantime, meat substitutes exist, but you seem to think they should be avoided because they're ... well, because they're substitutes for meat.

 

[Just thinking]

Yes it does, since diet cola would "resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"?

If it is soda they find objectionable, then you are correct. However, that is not the case, as even made clear by you. It is the calorie content, hence your use of the term "diet" soda.

By your way of thinking, diet cola should not be an option.

No, by your way. You equated it to the complete avoidance of meat.

The method exists, it's just not commercially viable. In the meantime, meat substitutes exist, but you seem to think they should be avoided because they're ... well, because they're substitutes for meat.

Must I go down the list of problems with this "method" found from your own link? Not to mention the use of growth hormones and anti-biotics, which today are tying to be minimized if not completely eliminated in foods.

 

[Just thinking]

It's now past midnight here ... I am retiring.

 

[Mobyseven]

Because it resembes, tastes, looks/smells like, cooks like, reminds them of, is passed off as an alternate for the very things they "find objectionable"?

Again: no. The things that are found objectionable tend to include things like factory farming, causing unnecessary suffering, and so on. Those are the things that are being avoided -- not the flavor or texture.

By eating faux-meats, vegetarians ARE avoiding the things that they want to avoid. Your assumption that somehow they can't see a soysauge without suffering some kind of cognitive dissonance is as bizarre as it is unfounded.

 

[23_Tauri]

Under the reasoning that a fetus is not a developed being, how could it be morally wrong to eat an aborted cow fetus? I did not say that pregnant cows should be purposefully induced into aborting. But if their happened to be some cow fetuses lying around because they were aborted for the heifer's health anyway then would it be OK for me to eat them?

I dunno, do they have faces?

 

[23_Tauri]

That's actually a non-sequitur. Your soda analogy falls right into equating people choosing lower fat content meats (92% lean vs. 80%), or avoiding red meats, but not vegetarianism. It's not like they are going off soda entirely. There are still a good number of chemicals (caffeine for one, food colorings and sugar substitutes are others) still present in diet sodas.

No it's not a non-sequitur. If someone stops eating meat for ethical reasons, as many vegetarians do, then they may want to re-create that bacon sandwich experience (or as near as possible) without making a pig suffer in the process. It may come as a surprise to you that no pigs are harmed in the making of a soy or quorn product.

ETA: Icerat beat me to it I see, but never wrong to state the bleedin' a couple of times, eh?

 

[23_Tauri]

And how high a percentage of vegetarians do you think fall into that category?

The vast majority I expect.

I agree that the vast majority of vegetarians become so because they don't want their food choices to result in animal suffering, through the way they are raised and slaughtered. Likewise, many people are vegetarian for ecological reasons, because meat production results in environmental degradation and is resource-hungry. In neither case are these people vegetarian because they don't like the taste of meat, or have an 'in principle' objection to eating meat per se. If the meat was caught and killed in the wild, rather than factory farmed, then there wouldn't be an objection on these grounds.

In such circumstances, there is no contradiction in eating a meat substitute product like fake bacon or a quorn lasagne.

 

[bigred]

That's a great point (bolding mine) and I think it also explains why some people are so aggressive about their food choices and try to force others to agree with them. Religion can be like that too.

What a shock, someone worked in a jab at religion on a totally unrelated topic at JREF (athough I will say it's certainly one of the tamer ones). There's something new.

And again I'd love to know where some of you live that people are trying to "force you to agree with them" about vegetarianism. I've yet to experience or even hear of such a thing happening - and I know people in the depths of Hippieland, California too.

 

[Just thinking]

Your assumption that somehow they can't see a soysauge without suffering some kind of cognitive dissonance is as bizarre as it is unfounded.

If only I had made such an assumption you might have a point. You can't see the possibility of avoiding meat because it's found not palatable by some? It seems that every vegetarian I've run across in the past (outside of health issues) uses that reason ... and it's been more than just a handful.

 

[icerat]

If only I had made such an assumption you might have a point. You can't see the possibility of avoiding meat because it's found not palatable by some? It seems that every vegetarian I've run across in the past (outside of health issues) uses that reason ... and it's been more than just a handful.

Well, I for one have never met anyone who is a vegetarian due to "palatability". Given the extreme range of different animal products, even from the same animal, that's an extremely strange reason, and I would suggest, extremely rare.

ETA: To add some science to the discussion, it appears there's been little research into determinants of vegetarianism, but it seems the biggest reason, globally, is that people can't afford meat!