Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[Furcifer]

In post in question, I am challenging your claim that a meat-eater's comments on a vegetarian's diet are "positive" (you should eat meat) while a vegetarian's comments on a meat eater's diet are "negative" (you shouldn't eat meat).

I never made that claim though. I never said anything about what meat eaters say about vegetarian diets, I said they claim "positive" things about their own omnivorous diet ie. variety, choice, freedom etc.

I am challenging it based on the fact that meat eaters who comment on my diet do not do so by saying "you should eat meat", or any other "positive" comment. They do it in the ways I outlined in my post, none of which are positive, or in any way akin to a motivational speaker.

Like I said that's your experience and I don't doubt it. I really can't comment on why your experience is like that because I don't know how you present yourself. The best way would be to ask a friend.

"People claim that vegetarians are preachy. Therefore they must be commenting negatively on others' diets to a statistically significant degree. However, I believe that meat eaters actually comment negatively on vegetarian diets at about the same rates, and it is the way that the comment is perceived (negative vs positive) that creates the prevailing cultural idea of vegetarians as preachy, while leaving meat eaters unscathed."

Is this, in fact, a good paraphrase of what you are trying to say? Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.

^this

I'd add that [preachy] vegetarians aren't happy with the way things are and want to change things. There's nothing stopping a person from going vegetarian. There aren't meat eaters protesting vegetarian dishes at restaurants. Meat eaters aren't boycotting vegetables. For whatever reasons that also comes off as negative and "preachy".
eta: although I maintain the main reason for the "preachy" label comes about because of the morality issues

 

[citizenzen]

We're not trying to prove or disprove the claim that all vegetarians are preachy. We're just establishing the existence and reason for the claim that they are.

Furcifer, you are either unintentionally dense, for which I feel sorry for you, or intentionally dishonest in your debate, which would be a shame.

I'll look for better people to discuss issues with elsewhere.

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer, you are either unintentionally dense, for which I feel sorry for you, or intentionally dishonest in your debate, which would be a shame.

I'll look for better people to discuss issues with elsewhere.

"Better people" aren't going to find your analogy any less flawed I'm afraid. We're looking at why people say vegetarians are preachy, that's the same as, using your example, why people say they saw a UFO or why people say they have ESP.

ttfn

 

[Belz...]

He doesn't use the term "preachy vegetarians".

He uses the term "vegetarians."

Now you're just using semantics. He said vegetarians are more of the sort to tell you what you shouldn't do. It was exactly as I said, and now you are obviously not trying to have a discussion, but rather "win" some imaginary game, and I'm not in a mood to play.

 

[Dimitri]

1. Quit moving the goalposts. You claimed it was "more cruel." How is it more cruel?

Since when am I moving goalposts? I guess you simply make assumptions which you have to constantly alter because you don't have a clue.

So, again, those of us who hug and kiss our pets goodbye before putting them down: are we "more cruel" for doing so? Are we akin to psychopaths? That's what you said before.

That's what you assume. I find both to be on the same level actually (hugs and kiss vs not to hug and kiss to put them down).

1. "techniques" would be part of "conditions", wouldn't it?

Using cranes and tools to build a house in a certain way are techniques. Conditions would be the weather. There is a difference between the 2, go figure. But yes, they are more or less linked to each other.

2. The techniques involved in ritual slaughter are inhumane.

It are the conditions, not the techniques.

In other words, I don't think the double standard you are accusing me/the world of having is actually a thing that exists

So then, why are people so keen on eggs being produced by chickens in an open field yet want a pet that listens correctly enclosed in a "spiritual" cage of rules and demands?

I have to admit that often I'm actually not sure what you mean. Please explain?

It was explained just reread the part I refered to.

Most people care about the quality of life of strangers, albeit in an abstract way. Are you saying you do not? That you would, for example, be okay with current US policy that allows the poor to die of treatable conditions because they cannot afford health insurance?

I'm not from the US and every country has its own (dis)advantages.

 

[citizenzen]

We're looking at why people say vegetarians are preachy ...

Who are these people?

So far your basis for establishing this proof is "... the number of people claiming ..."

What people? The few that have said as much in this thread? Cool. There have been a "number of people claiming" that it's the meat-eaters that are preachy. So by your burden of proof, we could just as easily look into why people say meat-eaters are preachy.

You can investigate this issue as much as you like. But without a valid premise, the endeavor is a farce and based merely on hearsay if not just your imagination.

Let the fairytale continue ...

 

[Furcifer]

Who are these people?

So far your basis for establishing this proof is "... the number of people claiming ..."

What people? The few that have said as much in this thread? Cool. There have been a "number of people claiming" that it's the meat-eaters that are preachy. So by your burden of proof, we could just as easily look into why people say meat-eaters are preachy.

The claim was made that vegetarians tend to be preachy. We're investigating that claim. At least those of us that aren't in denial.

You can investigate this issue as much as you like. But without a valid premise, the endeavor is a farce and based merely on hearsay if not just your imagination.

Let the fairytale continue ...

lol, a valid premise? OK. Here's an article:Five Reasons Omnivores Don't Eat In Vegan Restaurants
The number one reason given is Preachiness. Discuss the number one reason given by the author.

You really don't get what's going on in this forum do you?

 

[Meed]

I am not a vegetarian, but I like animals and can understand the not wanting to harm/kill them part that some vegetarians express.

I am close to vegan and I don't have a problem with killing animals in all circumstances. Hunting and fishing, for example, I have no problem with.

I really can't ever understand vegans, though. Are they saying milking a cow or taking eggs is cruel? Or are they really "all animal captivity is bad" loonies?

How about not all vegans are the same, therefore there isn't a single answer to your question? Personally, I don't have a problem with milking cows, taking eggs, or captivity in general if the animals are actually treated well. The problem is the treatment of animals in large scale factory farms is cruel by many people's standards. You can visit here:

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/

if you would like to learn about why some people feel this way. Peter Singer also has done some good work on the subject.

 

[citizenzen]

You really don't get what's going on in this forum do you?

Well, up until you managed to find a link to echo one of your assertions there's been little except you blowing smoke.

Congratulations on finding something ... anything ... that "someone said" that you can actually point to that agrees with you.

I hope you didn't strain yourself in the search.

 

[citizenzen]

You can visit here:

And you can visit here to read about "preachy meat-eaters"

Tie game.

One link to one link.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, up until you managed to find a link to echo one of your assertions there's been little except you blowing smoke.

No, the claim was made here as well. It's quite common actually. (including the link you just provided)

 

[citizenzen]

No, the claim was made here as well.

So was the claim of preachy meat-eaters.

Still tied.

Still a tie of pulled-out-of-the-ass opinions.

If that's your idea of evidence.

They all kinda of smell to me.

 

[Meed]

I share the sentiments of those who say they haven't met many/any "preachy" veg*ns and have met many meat eaters who give veg*ns a hard time. I also don't consider myself preachy. If someone asks me why I tend to avoid animal products I'll tell them and discuss the topic if they continue the conversation in that direction.

However, I don't necessarily have a problem with veg*ns who are 'preachy'. There was a guy at my old university who would hand out brochures against animal cruelty. I have a lot of respect for that.

For a comparison, I'm pro-choice, but I don't have a problem with pro-life activists. I also don't have a problem with people who try to convert me to their religion or political views as long as they're respectful and can take a hint when I'm not interested in hearing more.

 

[Furcifer]

I share the sentiments of those who say they haven't met many/any "preachy" veg*ns and have met many meat eaters who give veg*ns a hard time. I also don't consider myself preachy. If someone asks me why I tend to avoid animal products I'll tell them and discuss the topic if they continue the conversation in that direction.

I find that hard to believe. And it's not because I don't believe you

I still maintain the "preachy" moniker comes from vegetarians using morality as an excuse to change the system. It's only when they do that they get "preached to" by preachy meat eaters. You never see a "preachy meat eater" without a vegetarian near by. It has to make you wonder.

Not only that, but what everyone is describing, to me at least, is just the ribbing and eye rolling and teasing friends or acquaintances do between one another. The same basic back and forth beer drinkers and wine drinkers have, or Mac and PC users (maybe to Chevy/Ford level of animosity)
(eta: in an odd twist of fate one of my buddies who used to tease and eye roll me about being a vegetarian is now Jewish and doesn't eat pork. Although I don't eat much pork, I do make it my business to order something with bacon when he's around. Turkey bacon, whatever)

I don't know of any meat eating organizations or magazines that try to cast a bad light on vegetarians. (granted it's no small task to do). Still there's no "Poultry and Dairy Producers against Vegans" organization or "STN-Stop Tofu Now". Likewise the "Save a Farmer, eat a steak" bumper stickers are few and far between.

It's things like this that earn vegetarians the "preachy" moniker and not necessarily what you're describing. Just a thought.

 

[Furcifer]

So was the claim of preachy meat-eaters.

Still tied.

Still a tie of pulled-out-of-the-ass opinions.

If that's your idea of evidence.

They all kinda of smell to me.

I don't know what this means?

What do you mean by "tied"? There's no score being kept, this is a discussion on why people (meat eaters and vegetarians) find each other "preachy". The only assumption is that people say this for a reason.

 

[Meed]

I find that hard to believe. And it's not because I don't believe you

Well, it depends how you define "preachy".

I still maintain the "preachy" moniker comes from vegetarians using morality as an excuse to change the system.

That seems a really bizarre way of putting things. First of all, morality is a perfectly good reason to want to change "the system". Second, calling it an "excuse" implies that it isn't the real reason that such people would want the system changed (when AFAIK it is the real/main reason for many).

It's only when they do that they get "preached to" by preachy meat eaters.

That isn't true at all.

You never see a "preachy meat eater" without a vegetarian near by. It has to make you wonder.

Why would a meat eater preach to another meat eater?

 

[Furcifer]

Well, it depends how you define "preachy".

I don't know, all I can tell you is last night's Futurama
-fry am the egg man, had Fry commenting "he's a vegetarian, and not the preachy kind". Apparently pop culture gets it and skeptics don't.

That seems a really bizarre way of putting things. First of all, morality is a perfectly good reason to want to change "the system". Second, calling it an "excuse" implies that it isn't the real reason that such people would want the system changed (when AFAIK it is the real/main reason for many).

Well nobody said it wasn't, we're just talking about why they come off as preachy. "reason" or "excuse" is a matter of perspective.

That isn't true at all.

I beg to differ. I've eaten with a lot of meat eaters and they never disparage vegetarians when they're not around [preaching].

Why would a meat eater preach to another meat eater?

Vegetarians do. Another great pop culture reference, Lisa and her fiancee lying in bed [about meat eaters] "When will they learn". I've had similar discussions with other vegetarians that I've never had as a meat eater with other meat eaters There are websites upon websites of vegetarians preaching the virtues of not eating meat. You don't see that with meat eaters.
I realize that happens because meat eating is generally accepted and the default position in this society doesn't mean vegetarians don't come off as preachy. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it either. I'm just pointing out that's how it is.

 

[Meed]

I beg to differ. I've eaten with a lot of meat eaters and they never disparage vegetarians when they're not around [preaching].

You made the claim that vegetarians don't get preached to by meat eaters, not the claim that they don't get preached to by every single meat eater.

Vegetarians do. Another great pop culture reference, Lisa and her fiancee lying in bed [about meat eaters] "When will they learn".

You realize that cartoons aren't real life, right? Not that I would tend to think of that as preaching anyway.

There are websites upon websites of vegetarians preaching the virtues of not eating meat. You don't see that with meat eaters.
I realize that happens because meat eating is generally accepted and the default position in this society doesn't mean vegetarians don't come off as preachy. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it either. I'm just pointing out that's how it is.

Well yeah, you're right there are more vegetarian activists than pro-meat activists. When I think preachy vegetarian I think of someone disparaging their meat eating friends and acquaintances, so I may have misunderstood the discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

You made the claim that vegetarians don't get preached to by meat eaters, not the claim that they don't get preached to by every single meat eater.

I don't know what being pedantic does to further the discussion, but I suppose that's correct.

You realize that cartoons aren't real life, right? Not that I would tend to think of that as preaching anyway.

Actually they are, they are on a 8PM on Fox, it's very real.
This might be the reason you don't understand why people find vegetarians "preachy", I can't think of anything more "preachy" than talking about how horrible and foolish meat eaters are. (except possibly talking about how horrible and foolish vegetarians are)

Well yeah, you're right there are more vegetarian activists than pro-meat activists. When I think preachy vegetarian I think of someone disparaging their meat eating friends and acquaintances, so I may have misunderstood the discussion.

You seem to be getting the point I was making. It's much more "preachy" to talk about how horrible it is to eat meat, than to talk about how great it is to eat meat. That's assuming both are equally obnoxious in doing to.

 

[Kid Eager]

I am an omnivore.
My physiology is optimised for an omnivorous diet.
All food groups are readily available to me
There are no moral or ethical barriers to me eating from said food groups
Removing a food group from my diet degrades my performance

Ergo, vegetarianism does not meet my needs.