New poll for - Kevin's post

[Guest guest]

>The unloved animal point I just assumed was a stab at humor . . .

 

Touché! Well, actually, it was a little serious too. I have heard and read =

the

argument that one might as well consume whatever animal is now lying dead

on the plate (usually at a dinner with non-vegetarians, something you've ha=

d

unexpectedly thrust on you, whatever) because 1. the animal is dead anyway =

 

and 2. it's sad that the animal is dead but it shouldn't give it's life in =

vain and 3.

that it is a mark of disrespect to the animal (or your hostess, your pocket=

book,

your whatever) to simply cast it aside. The counter-arguments to those

unreasoned 'reasons' are obvious, and I guess I was trying to conflate that=

 

whole category. And so not to be too heavy about it, I did put it in a friv=

olous

way because the argument cannot be taken seriously ;=)

 

> My only issue with the list is that it didn't hit any of my key

> issues, which are:

>

> - I am in transition, breaking long-standing eating habits

 

So, I guess, as a non-vegetarian in transition, you would find that there a=

re

several reasons why it is difficult to break some of those habits. The idea=

was

to pick one of them as the major one - in your view of your life right now.=

 

 

> - some meat doesn't strike me as particularly offensive, such as:

> fish, snails, mollusks in general. . .

 

Oh that's easy. I covered that one under the first option (ie. 'I see no re=

ason . .

..'). If you continue to find f*sh and other sea/waterlife inoffensive, so b=

e it. You

will not be a vegetarian, but you will be a pescatarian, which is an intere=

sting

eating style. Many non-vegetarians will call that being vegetarian and hass=

le

you for it anyway, but you can handle that ;=) On a veggie survey or poll, =

 

water-dwelling animals are still animals - and dead they are still meat or =

flesh

and therefore you'd answer any questions (presuming you want to play along =

 

with the game) as any other non-vegetarian would ;=)

 

> - I'm still learning about vegetarianism . . .

 

Quite an adventure isn't it? And such an interesting and entertaining journ=

ey!

Ask away if you need help - I don't think anyone here will mind a bit and t=

hat's

in part what these kinds of lists are for (unless they are recipe-only list=

s).

There are many on this list who are experts on the subject of vegetarianism=

,

veganism, and the various specialized forms it sometimes takes. (Me, I'm ju=

st

a vegetarian.)

 

And if this was a comment about the third poll too, then I have to admit th=

at I

was annoyed with myself for having left out the reasons: 'I was tricked int=

o it!'

or I didn't know there was xyz in that product - what I call the 'I didn't =

know the

gun was loaded' argument - which happens more often than one might think

:=( So you'd have to select your secondary reason or just vote for Other -=

 

sorry about that. It was too late to edit by the time I realized, cuz a cou=

ple of

people had voted by then and editing wipes out all votes. :=O

 

Thanks for writing in - always good to chat with you!

 

Best,

 

Pat ;=)

[Guest guest]

> If you continue to find f*sh and other sea/waterlife inoffensive, so

> b=

> e it. You

> will not be a vegetarian, but you will be a pescatarian, which is an

> intere=

> sting

> eating style. Many non-vegetarians will call that being vegetarian and

> hass=

> le

> you for it anyway, but you can handle that ;=) On a veggie survey or

> poll, =

>

> water-dwelling animals are still animals - and dead they are still meat

> or =

> flesh

> and therefore you'd answer any questions (presuming you want to play

> along =

>

> with the game) as any other non-vegetarian would ;=)

 

I kind of like my mom's view on the whole thing. See, she's not veggie,

but is on a diabetic diet and eats mostly fish and veggies anyway...My

parents are food connesours (SP?) and believe that if you cook meat with

love, passion, and respect and enjoy the food that you cook, then you are

honoring the animal that is your dinner. It's kind of how I see all living

things that are on my plate (veggie or not). But like I said in the other

post, I'm 99% veggie at this point, and rarely will I eat poultry or

fish...(usually fish)...honestly, I don't think this makes me any less a

vegetarian, since I don't rely on meat products for my main source of

nutrition....*shrug* I suppose that it's all in how you look at it...I've

been harassed about that in other groups saying that I wasn't a true

vegetarian and never will be with my " attitude " towards the whole

thing...(although, most of the people that have been snippy with me about

that also view PETA as their main source of information on vegetarianism.

I agree with PEAT idealogically, but I detest their practices...don't

flame me for this, it's just my opinion...I know how heated the flaming

can get...)

 

anyway, that's just my 2 cents...take it or leave it...

 

Gina

[Guest guest]

Pat,

 

Thank you for fleshing this out for me. I think you really did get to

the meat of the matter. Seems to me, no matter how you slice it, if

it once moved [certain plant movement such as phototropism duly

noted], it is meat. It is rare indeed to see coverage of this point

so well done.

 

Okay, I'll stop with the dumb puns.

 

Seriously, is there an argument that goes something like this. If the

animal is 'relatively' unintelligent, like fish or snails, is it

therefore morally less offensive to consume these?

 

Now a quick SciFi question. We will soon reach a point at which

animal protein, in the form of a steak, can be grown in-vitro, in

volume, using industrial tissue culture. Now this particular 'meat'

would not come from an animal, so, is it still " meat " from the

vegetarian, even vegan, perspective?

 

Kevin

 

***************

 

> >The unloved animal point I just assumed was a stab at humor . . .

>

> Touché! Well, actually, it was a little serious too. I have heard

and read