Reasons why Emma should stop being a vegetarian.

(you have to register w/ the nytimes if you haven't)

What kind of mentalist argument is this, archel?

(I don't really crave meat but if I did, I like to think I might be able to exercise some self-restraint if I felt that eating it was wrong)

The paedophilia analogy is hardly fair!

oh and agreed with Kate re. the bacon sandwich. why is there this persistent myth that the willpower of the average veggie will melt like lard under a blowtorch when faced with crispy pigggy bits? (dan perry to thread...)

I didn't mean to start this argument, Nick made me do it. I wuv vegans. And I think bacon SUXOR too!

(or come back next week some time at least)

a) Surely you would hate more the fact that Nick is associated with Hornby.
b) Hornby trains *were* good - hence the association already existed.
c) I hate that the word Nick is associated with being good.

I think that the farm he describes is about as good as it could possibly get (animals benefiting from each other and from the humans that care from them, playing in sunshine, leading happy lives up until their quick slaughter). However, as Pollan points out, it seems unlikely that these farms could work on a mass scale. There is such a high demand for meat in the US that these farms would probably start cutting back on the animals' benefits. Cages would get cramped and the respect for individual animals would drop drastically. They would become machines once again... Farms would become production machines where efficiency demands suffering on the part of the animals.

Pollan goes on to say that if everyone were vegetarian, MORE animals would be killed, not less. Small rodents and the like would be slaughtered by harvest machines at a much greater rate.

Perhaps then, in an ideal world, there could be more of a balance, namely a goal of eating LESS meat, not necessarily forgoing it completely. It is rather hard for me to suggest that. Maybe it is just a compromise of sorts? Personally, I still don't find it easy to agree that just because an animal's life is 'happy' it is ok to kill it. True, animals may not know the human dread of murder. But would it be ok to kill a person quickly and painlessly who was not expecting it? I think not. Of course, you are probably thinking that this is a dumb analogy because you don't equate animals with people. Ok, then. What about a cat? Is it ok for a cat to live a happy life and then be killed suddenly and painlessly? Is it ok to just take away its life?

I think if you decide to be a vegetarian, then you may as well be a vegan and if you decide to be a vegan then you may as well kill yrself.

By this logic, why ever try to be good? I mean, we could never be perfect, so why try improving ourselves AT ALL? I think vegetarianism is very easy, especially after you've been at it for a while. There are meat substitutes which (as far as I can remember having been vegetarian for 10 years now) taste quite a bit like real meat. I don't think they've perfected the taste of fake steak, though. :)

I guess my biggest complaint against people who don't appreciate my vegetarianism is that I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. That is not to say that I am perfect in any way. I still eat cheese and eggs. I don't keep a clean house. I can be rude to people who try to make small-talk with me when I'm not interested. And so-on... But, being vegetarian in itself does not cause any problems for other people. So I don't see why so many people feel a need to convert me. I don't complain when other people eat me or look at them with evil eyes. I'm just doing my own thing.

My Grandmother used to be very upset with me for being vegetarian, because she said Jesus told everyone to eat meat. I guess she was referring to the bible verse Pollan quoted. However, I don't think of myself as a Christian, so that doesn't really affect me.

Ok, go have a field day with this one. :)

I do not understand how not eating meat is being totally equated with being gooder. and not eating/using animal products at all is totally equated with being even gooder.

I have to fill in some crappy questionaire now. Uergh.

How does this argument square with standard argument about crops needed to feed animals to feed people vs. crops needed to feed people ratio?

The paedophilia analogy is hardly fair!

Why not? It seems spot on to me.

Neither do I. I also know a few people who have espoused the idea of "only eating something if you catch it." This strikes me as being fucking ridiculous.

Agreed.

I do not understand how not eating meat is being totally equated with being gooder. and not eating/using animal products at all is totally equated with being even gooder.

I don't get this. What's not to understand? Is first 'gooder' meant to be 'goodest'?

This wasn't supposed to be about whether vegetarianism is right or wrong, I was saying to Archel that *if* you think it's right then your argument doesn't follow.

But seeing as you've started it, yes Andrew I do. Do you think it would be a good thing to have as many kids as you can on the grounds that just having one or two deprives the others of having a life at all? Get shagging!

: )

If one believes that animal slaughter is wrong, then it would make sense that (to that person) eating no meat at all and wearing no animal products would be more moral than simply not eating, say, red meat.

Cool. Then let me eat YOU.

We're not in nature now!

'In nature' = in character by the way. Sorry.

Bye!

But I don't understand why non-vegetarians nag vegetarians to eat meat so much. When I was vegetarian my friends kept acting annoyed with me or lecturing me about how I was wrong, and it just made no sense. Did they think that I thought badly of them for eating meat, so they had to justify themselves by making my habits look dumb? Did they think I was going to jump on them for eating meat if they didn't jump on me for not eating it first? It wasn't like I was bothering them, or changing their diets, or being inconvenient to cook for, because they didn't cook for me. Can someone explain this phenomenon?

(I gave in to eating meat because of Ramen noodles. Even if I didn't eat the sauce packets I'd still be buying them. Also I felt really awful refusing my extended family's cooking.)

You sound like my mum! This is ILE! (anyway you started the vegetarianism: right or wrong tangent)

In my case, I've always been jumped on by vegetarians. I once asked a friend who gave up meat why she did it because I was genuinely curious and got a full-barrell "FUCK YOU WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING ME????" response. Also, I've gone out to dinner with people who appear to have turned their vegetarianism into a circus act (you know what I'm talking about; the people who use every opening possible to proclaim that they are better human beings than everyone else at the table because of their dietary choices). These people seem to think that being vegetarian gives them the right to comment snidely about the people who are eating meat. I do not like these people, not because they are vegetarians but because they are fucking annoying.

Ok, so I've gotten my share of hassling and I'm a bit bitter.

This is one of my big etiquette-related pet peeves, which is why I'm still pointlessly going on about it even though I eat meat.

Reason #1: I don't like the taste. (Low on the controversy scale; some won't get it but many will chalk it up under the "I hate [x type of food]" discussion and further talk isn't an attack.)

Reason #2: I don't like the concept. (Position on the controversy scale varies with how this is expressed; launching full-bore into gruesome conditions on veal farms while someone is trying to eat veal will probably not be appreciated. Talking personal ethics always is a minefield and I don't think there's any real way around that.)

Reason #2: I feel healthier. (Low on the controversy scale; anyone who attacks you over your personal health is a cockfarmer looking for a reason to attack you. Don't make the mistake of saying, "It is healthier" though, as the people you are talking to who are eating meat will assume you are judging them.)

(Black Pudding)

* deploys Medallion of Disgust on Ed's shoulders *

Pollan goes on to say that if everyone were vegetarian, MORE animals would be killed, not less. Small rodents and the like would be slaughtered by harvest machines at a much greater rate.

...because I just started hearing this argument in the last year or so and I love it. I mean, I love it in the way that I love any weird argument that seems to have been thought up while someone was on pot (or on the pot).

Because rodents dying in a harvester is tragic, and cattle dying in a slaughterhouse is tragic, and more dying is more tragic. That's the logic behind that argument, and it's pretty good logic. But it doesn't really take into account what happens after the tragedy: After the initially less-tragic cattle deaths, the carcasses are chopped up, sold, marinated, and prepared into food which people are expected to eat.

I mean, this is a weird reaction to tragedy!

(Again, you might not think it's a terribly tragic thing, but you're not the person this argument is trying to convince.)

Anyway. It just seems obvious that the answer to this problem is less harmful harvesting techniques/technologies, not more bacon!

I turned to one of my friends and said, "You know, after seeing all of this... I kind of want a burger."

She said, "Me too." She turned to another one of our friends and asked, "Are you getting hungry?"

He said, "Yeah, I am! Huh."

We then started asking everyone around us if they were getting hungry. Most people said yes. After the show, there was a massive McDonald's run.

I think the moral of the story is certain types of propaganda don't work on certain audiences.

Corny Dogs Rock