Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[Furcifer]

Cool.

Mighty big of you, thanks.

So will you then agree with the statement that vegetarians are no more likely to be preachy than any segment of the population?

Or ...

That the quality of preachiness is no more likely to be found in vegetarians, simply for the fact that they eat a vegetarian diet?

I just want to make sure that we're clear here.

Somewhat of a false dichotomy. It would be foolish to say meat eaters don't speak of their diet, because they do. I'd say you're likely to hear about someone's diet equally, whether it's "Atkins" or "Lacto/ovo" vegetarian.

My main point is that vegetarians come off preachy because it first tends to be about what you shouldn't eat. This tends to present itself as a form of condemnation. Second, there's the underlying nature of vegetarianism and morality which once again comes off as preachy and judgmental. "I don't eat meat because animals suffer" easily translates into "You're diet makes animals suffer". "I don't eat meat because my doctor told me not to", while having the same ends doesn't come off the same way.

The third point would be that you are more likely to meet a militant vegan rather than a militant meat eater. That's just the nature of being a minority representative.

It's not entirely fair to say "vegetarians are preachy", but it's hard to talk about morality and not come off as judgmental.

 

[citizenzen]

The third point would be that you are more likely to meet a militant vegan rather than a militant meat eater. That's just the nature of being a minority representative.

Yet, if we just looked though the posts in this thread, I'll bet you'd find far more "militant" [ardent advocators] of meat than you would vegetarianism.

It seems as if we won't come to any agreement on this issue.

I will simply add that the preachiness you attribute to vegetarians is based on perception and not reality. People in general are moralistic, preachy and prone to being holier-than-thou in one form or another. Vegetarians no more or less than anybody else.

But on this matter, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[tesscaline]

I'm not assuming anything. You may be a vegan for all I know. Why are you taking my question so personally? I'm interested to know why some people are so attached to eating meat that any suggestion (backed up with evidence) that cutting down might be beneficial to their health is either dismissed, ignored or violently rejected.

I'm taking your question personally because it is a personal question -- you asked for personal motivations in whether or not someone would consider cutting down on meat. If you don't want people to take questions personally, don't ask personal questions.

 

[tesscaline]

You felt the need to point out that cooking is not a perfect solution for killing all bacteria, viruses and parasites.

Yes, I did feel the need to point that out. Take a food sanitation course sometime and you'll understand why I felt the need to speak very carefully about a very serious and often misunderstood food safety subject.

I know exactly what I asked you, but as you felt the need to be ridiculously pedantic in your reply, I thought I'd ask a similar question with virtually no wiggle room. I see you've managed to avoid answering it though, so I've obviously failed. Well done. You win.

*sigh*

You want an answer to whether or not cooking makes food safer? The answer is "sometimes". Again, please refer to your NSF (that'd be nsf.org, not nsf.gov) food safety manual.

Food can be just as safe raw as it is cooked, if it is processed and handled properly.

Equally, food can be just as dangerous cooked as it is raw if it is processed and handled improperly.

Cooking is not a magic bullet. Cooking doesn't "make food safe". Proper processing and handling of food "makes food safe".

As for the "easier to extract nutrients from" -- again, this is not a simple yes or no answer. Which nutrients? Define nutrients? If they're substances that are not destroyed by heat, then yes, cooking can make it easier to extract them from food. Cooking can also make the number of calories absorbed from food higher [Edit: This is a very bad way for me to have worded this statement, in fact, such a bad way that it is misleading to someone who doesn't already know what I mean. I'm not quite sure how to re-word it, as yet, but I'll get back to it because I hate such inaccuracies in my own posts]. Cooking can also make the amount of vitamins and minerals obtained from food lower, as heat destroys some, and certain cooking methods leech away others.

I don't know why you think these questions you're asking have pat yes or no answers when frankly it just isn't that simple.

I don't care about "winning". I care about accurate truthful statements. Your game playing with these inane questions isn't going to change that being my end goal for my own posts.

 

[Furcifer]

I will simply add that the preachiness you attribute to vegetarians is based on perception and not reality. .

I would add that "preachiness" is an inherent result of talking about morality.

I think you are confusing "passion" or "argumentativeness" with "preachiness". A meat eater can be just as adamant about their diet choices as a vegetarian and by not invoking morality refrain from appearing "preachy".

It's the fundamental difference that separates a "motivational speaker" from a "preacher".

 

[Brian-M]

BTW, how is it possible to infer suffering in a non-human animal without anthropomorphism?

By observation of behavior in response to different stimuli, by measuring levels of adrenaline and cortisol in the blood, and from neurological research which reveals that the basic brain structures involved with experiencing pain and distress in humans also exist and serve the same function in animals.

And then he goes on to say that [all] vegetarians are much more [likely?] to tell you why you shouldn't do something.

I never said "all", that's a lie and a misrepresentation.

He was neither lying nor misrepresenting what you said.

When quoting someone, square brackets are traditionally used to indicate something that is not an exact quote. This is nothing new, the practice was around long before computers existed.

It is not uncommon to insert presumably omitted words into a quote, using the brackets to make it clear that this word was not what was originally said. So it is no lie for him include a word that he believes was unintentionally omitted if he encloses it in brackets

Your unqualified use of "vegetarians" strongly implies that you meant "all" of them, so inserting it does not misrepresent what you said.

Not sure if this is a very good argument for eating meat, not least of which because there are plenty of healthy vegans out there. The argument seems to be that your personal convenience matters more than any concievable harm caused to animals in the process of raising them for slaughter. I'm actually reminded of a brief thought experience I ran across a number of years ago, The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle:

Looking at that page...

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance.

I've heard another version of this argument before. The version I heard, the cost of saving the drowning child was ruining your very expensive brand new sneakers, rather than missing class and getting muddy clothes, and compared the financial cost of losing the expensive sneakers to donating the same amount of money to help save lives in another country.

The way I see it, the drowning child is a specific person in imminent danger, and your actions directly affect the outcome.

But the foreign child is a non-specific person not in imminent danger (at time of donation) and your actions (contributing to the pool of funds available to the charity) only indirectly affects the outcome.

These are two very different situations, so the comparison is invalid.

Not to imply that there isn't some moral obligation to help the less-fortunate when you can readily do so. Personally I donate to UNICEF via automatic monthly payments.

 

[Furcifer]

He was neither lying nor misrepresenting what you said.

When quoting someone, square brackets are traditionally used to indicate something that is not an exact quote. This is nothing new, the practice was around long before computers existed.

Unfortunately he continued to pursue this "over generalization" despite my making it clear the generalization was about all vegetarians not eating meat and not what they say (in case it was an "accident"). It's dishonest in light of the former statements and attempts to clarify them. Since we were talking about [preachy] vegetarians I didn't think it necessary to qualify it at the time.
Sloppy on my part? Sure, but once it's been corrected and explained there's no need to continue it.

Your unqualified use of "vegetarians" strongly implies that you meant "all" of them, so inserting it does not misrepresent what you said.

It shouldn't be necessary to qualify every statement within the context of a specific discussion. Can you honestly claim I'm said ALL vegetarians are preachy after this: "most" of the vegetarians I've met do so for religious reasons. They don't really try and justify it or get preachy about it"
Not honestly you can't.
(very few people in this forum actually engage in sweeping generalizations. pointing them out when they do occur is akin to pointing out spelling mistakes)

 

[MoeFaux]

As I mentioned earlier, I've encountered many, many, many folks who preach the "gospel of meat." And are jerks about it. Not so with veg's and vegans. No Vegan has ever attacked me for eating eggs or fish. No Vegetarian has ever told me that I'm stupid for having some sushi. But over and over again, I've heard awful things from regular meat-eaters. Awful things. It kind of makes me think that maybe most *are* people with lax ethics, if they'd be so quick to mock me for not having a damn steak.

 

[elipse]

Yeah, I have to say, Furcifer, that whether or not your point fails because you paint all vegetarians as preachy (I don't care to get into that argument; you've said that's what you meant and I buy it), it totally fails because it just isn't true. When I am criticized for my diet, it usually is not in a "I love meat; I love trying new things; you should try new things with me!" manner. It is one of the following:

a. Rolled eyes and snort
b. Blanket statements that vegetarians cannot possibly get enough nutrients/vitamins/protein/what have you
c. "You're an idiot and probably a hippie"
d. "Your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."
e. No comment, but a refusal to accommodate even when it would be easy
f. No comment, but an attempt to trick me (this has not happened since I was a teenager and was done by my own family. It was replaced by e. when it failed to work.)

The only time the love of meat is mentioned is as a varient of c, namely "I love meat and therefore your decision to eat differently than I eat makes you an idiot and probably a hippie" or d. "I love meat and therefore your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."

I don't see how this is more like a motivational speaker than a preacher.

Actually, it's like neither. It's more like a douchebag, which is what these people are. Non-douchebags don't comment negatively about my diet, just like, as a non-douchebag myself, I don't comment on theirs.

 

[elipse]

I also loved my bunny rabbit and liked to hug and kiss it before it ended up in the oven. But It was raised to end up in it anyway. Am I cruel? Not according to your reasoning.

1. Quit moving the goalposts. You claimed it was "more cruel." How is it more cruel?
2. That is correct. I do not consider you cruel if you raise rabbits for food but treat them humanely during the course of their life and slaughter.

More then once I had to put 1 down. After a while you get used to it and simply kill it in one swift move. Sometimes it is better to do it fast without all the emotions around it.

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.

I'm actually using your own reasoning against you. That, and this quote is an assumption you made.

You are doing it badly.

You are talking about the conditions it is being killed. I'm talking about the techniques.

1. "techniques" would be part of "conditions", wouldn't it?
2. The techniques involved in ritual slaughter are inhumane.

From what I observe in daily life that "caring about their quality of life" is most of the time dependend on social status and being closely related. Outsiders tend to not care about it (unless being forced by imposed feelings of guilt by social pressure).

This is the second time I've felt like you cannot possibly mean what you say. 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?

 

[Furcifer]

Yeah, I have to say, Furcifer, that whether or not your point fails because you paint all vegetarians as preachy (I don't care to get into that argument; you've said that's what you meant and I buy it), it totally fails because it just isn't true. When I am criticized for my diet, it usually is not in a "I love meat; I love trying new things; you should try new things with me!" manner. It is one of the following:

a. Rolled eyes and snort
b. Blanket statements that vegetarians cannot possibly get enough nutrients/vitamins/protein/what have you
c. "You're an idiot and probably a hippie"
d. "Your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."
e. No comment, but a refusal to accommodate even when it would be easy
f. No comment, but an attempt to trick me (this has not happened since I was a teenager and was done by my own family. It was replaced by e. when it failed to work.)

The only time the love of meat is mentioned is as a varient of c, namely "I love meat and therefore your decision to eat differently than I eat makes you an idiot and probably a hippie" or d. "I love meat and therefore your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."

I don't see how this is more like a motivational speaker than a preacher.

Actually, it's like neither. It's more like a douchebag, which is what these people are. Non-douchebags don't comment negatively about my diet, just like, as a non-douchebag myself, I don't comment on theirs.

No.

It's not so much because you're wrong (it's your story and I believe it), but because you fail to realize the number of people claiming that they in fact have found vegetarians "preachy". You're dismissing it without giving a valid explanation for why people feel this way. In fact you've avoided it altogether. (whether the label is warranted or not seems irrelevant at this point)

If this was some new claim I might be inclined to agree with you, but it isn't. I've seen it come up in real life and I've obviously seen it come up here.

You really need to come up with some plausible explanation before you can really comment on what I said was true or not. All you've really said is "No you are wrong, people don't find vegetarians preachy". We all know that isn't true. Plus, I think you've got just a bit of confirmation bias showing.

 

[elipse]

My point would be if it eventually matters if it suffered or not. It's going to die anyway.

True. So are you. No matter what you do or how you live, you're going to die anyway. So does your quality of life cease to matter when you take your eventual death into consideration?

I say yes. It does matter.

That's not what I said, read closer.

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

Get your act straight, right from your mouth:

Using animals for entertainmant does not imply suffering but can be seen as a sort of legalized abuse... just switch "animal" for "human".

See, this is what I mean. You misunderstood me, I clarified, and you come back with this. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Simply pointing at the obvious fact that while some want animals to be treated in a humane way when it comes to food have actually pets which aren't really treated in the same humane way. The commanding nature towards your dog and the training it has to endure to have it behaving in the ways you want it to behave are almost the same as the cattle being handled. Only difference would be that you are providing the food and shelter.. and that you don't kill it in humane ways but use it as entertainment/protection what other things you want it to do.

I don't know of any people who want food animals to be treated humanely but treat their pets in a way that is contrary to their definition of "humane".

I, for instance, have no problem with a commanding nature, either with cows or dogs. Command all you like; that doesn't go against my definition of "humane". I don't know what ways you train your dog that the dog could be said to have to "endure" it... but if you are training your dog in a way that I would consider inhumane, you can be sure I wouldn't want you to treat a cow that way, either (with obvious scale-ups because of size, weight, etc).

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

 

[MoeFaux]

When I am criticized for my diet, it usually is not in a "I love meat; I love trying new things; you should try new things with me!" manner. It is one of the following:

a. Rolled eyes and snort
b. Blanket statements that vegetarians cannot possibly get enough nutrients/vitamins/protein/what have you
c. "You're an idiot and probably a hippie"
d. "Your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."
e. No comment, but a refusal to accommodate even when it would be easy
f. No comment, but an attempt to trick me

The only time the love of meat is mentioned is as a varient of c, namely "I love meat and therefore your decision to eat differently than I eat makes you an idiot and probably a hippie" or d. "I love meat and therefore your diet is an imposition/affront to me personally."

I don't see how this is more like a motivational speaker than a preacher.

Actually, it's like neither. It's more like a douchebag, which is what these people are. Non-douchebags don't comment negatively about my diet, just like, as a non-douchebag myself, I don't comment on theirs.

This, this this. +++

In my 20 + years of being a vegetarian, I didn't "preach." Even when given opportunities, like when a friend would order steak and apologize to me, I would reply with: "Eat what you like!"

It's really the other way; meat-eaters attacking veg-heads.

 

[Furcifer]

No Vegan has ever attacked me for eating eggs or fish.

No meat eater has ever attacked me for not eating liver, or pork chops.

No Vegetarian has ever told me that I'm stupid for having some sushi. But over and over again, I've heard awful things from regular meat-eaters. Awful things. It kind of makes me think that maybe most *are* people with lax ethics, if they'd be so quick to mock me for not having a damn steak.

Take a look at elipse's list of reactions; number 1 "eye rolling"

I think it's a top reaction for a reason, and that reason is the "Oh here we go again, another vegetarian on a mission" reaction. Just saying.

 

[elipse]

No.

It's not so much because you're wrong (it's your story and I believe it), but because you fail to realize the number of people claiming that they in fact have found vegetarians "preachy". You're dismissing it without giving a valid explanation for why people feel this way. In fact you've avoided it altogether. (whether the label is warranted or not seems irrelevant at this point)

If this was some new claim I might be inclined to agree with you, but it isn't. I've seen it come up in real life and I've obviously seen it come up here.

You really need to come up with some plausible explanation before you can really comment on what I said was true or not. All you've really said is "No you are wrong, people don't find vegetarians preachy". We all know that isn't true. Plus, I think you've got just a bit of confirmation bias showing.

Hmmm. That's not what I was saying at all. I am not claiming in any way that people don't find vegetarians preachy. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

(I have, in a different post, posited that the people claiming it are actually projecting/ basing their views on a cultural meme, and challenged them to tell me the last time they were preached at by a vegetarian, but that's neither here nor there as it's not the point I'm making in the post we're discussing.)

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 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.

How does confirmation bias come in at all, in any way that can't be turned around? I don't like people negatively commenting on my diet; I call people who do douchebags. You don't like people commenting negatively on your diet (one presumes, otherwise what evidence have you that veggies are preachy?), and call those people preachy.

Wait, I just realized something. I am assuming that this is your position:

"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.

 

[MoeFaux]

No meat eater has ever attacked me for not eating liver, or pork chops.



Take a look at elipse's list of reactions; number 1 "eye rolling"

I think it's a top reaction for a reason, and that reason is the "Oh here we go again, another vegetarian on a mission" reaction. Just saying.

What kind of person rolls their eyes at someone else, except maybe a teenager? It's a terrible reaction, a reaction I wouldn't even give to someone who told me they were getting their market advice from a psychic. And when it's the reaction that I've seen over and over again, it's infuriating. And rude. Completely rude.

Let me eat the way I'd like. I'm not hurting anyone. And when I'm eating a meat-free diet, I'm not hurting any*thing* either.

 

[citizenzen]

No ... you fail to realize the number of people claiming that they in fact have found vegetarians "preachy".

There are many posts here at JREF that attempt to prove something merely based on a number of people claiming 'X'.

There's a number of people claiming that they in fact have seen UFOs.

There's a number of people claiming that they in fact have ESP.
​

Nowhere in this forum is that accepted as proof ... except among lovers of woo.

So please, substantiate your claims with something better than, "a number of people claim" or admit that you're arguing with nothing more than hearsay.

Neither of which you'll ever do.

 

[Furcifer]

What kind of person rolls their eyes at someone else, except maybe a teenager? It's a terrible reaction, a reaction I wouldn't even give to someone who told me they were getting their market advice from a psychic. And when it's the reaction that I've seen over and over again, it's infuriating. And rude. Completely rude.

Let me eat the way I'd like. I'm not hurting anyone. And when I'm eating a meat-free diet, I'm not hurting any*thing* either.

True, and I've probably been there. I'm just saying it seems to me like you are pointing out the viscous circle that seems to exist because there are ******** on either side of the issue. There are the morally self righteous vegetarians who think they're better than everyone else and the redneck meat eaters that don't give a flying spaghetti monster about anyone else or how they feel.
If I had to pick which came first or whose more opinionated I'd probably lean towards the vegetarians. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Furcifer]

There are many posts here at JREF that attempt to prove something merely based on a number of people claiming 'X'.

There's a number of people claiming that they in fact have seen UFOs.

There's a number of people claiming that they in fact have ESP.
​

lol, you don't see the flaw in this? 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.

You still don't get it.

 

[ibbicay]

Carrot juice is murder!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

In all seriousness:

Strengthen and enforce animal cruelty laws. We're humans, we have the capacity to understand pain and suffering, and the ability to minimize it for our food sources. There's no good reason why we shouldn't try our best.

Other than that, a good general rule of thumb is: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I don't have any problem with what any individual chooses to eat, or not eat, as long as they don't try to force it on anyone* else. Do the best with the information you have available to you about nutrition in general and your individual characteristics, evaluate claims critically, and I'll do the same.

*Kids: eat your veggies.

Bon appetit!