We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, June 30. 2010
They'll probably admit they do. Fish, being a water animal, really isn't like all of those regular bad animals that they don't eat, being a vegetarian and all.
Then gently ask them if they eat chicken.
They'll hem and haw a bit, but admit that, yes, they'll occasionally have a little bite of chicken, perhaps with a salad — but only if the chicken is organically-grown, of course.
Then gently ask them if they eat turkey.
Well, yes, on Thanksgiving and other special days, they might eat a little turkey. After all, they eat chicken, don't they? It would seem kind of silly to suddenly draw the line between chickens and turkeys since they're practically the same thing.
In other words, if it has pretty, human-like eyes...
...then it's bad and evil to eat!
But if it has ugly little beady eyes...
...then it's perfectly okay to eat!
They're not "vegetarians", they're just regular ol' people — except they don't eat animals with pretty eyes. Just animals with ugly little beady eyes.
Or, to properly categorize them, they're the beady-eyed meat eaters.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Er, thanks, G, but I cringe in anticipation of some die-hard veg-heads showing up. Just remember, Dear Complainers:
- I'm only the innocent messenger. Blame my roommate!
- I have seen first-hand the marvel of macrobiotics
- I, myself, tend to eat holistically
So don't gimme any grief.
Nature is red of tooth and claw. The darndest "cute" animals are hunters -- squirrels and penguins, for example. For that matter, the "peaceful" great whales herd up fish into schools and gulp them by the ton -- as they must do to live.
It's anyone's privilege to decide what animals to eat based on "cute". But it's silly and it's quite unnatural. In Nature, "cute" means two things: easy to catch and tender to eat.
A full-fledged vegan (no I'm not) is principled and uses no animal foods at all. That should actually include gelatin.
"In Nature, "cute" means two things: easy to catch and tender to eat."
It's all about the eyes. As in this post, so it is in the wild kingdom. Baby seal pups are good because they have those big adorable eyes. Opposums are bad because they have those ugly red eyes. Deer are good because they have those big, beautiful eyes, yet they're deemed one of the worst parents in the animal kingdom. Wolves are bad because of their nasty yellow eyes, yet they're deemed one of the best parents.
Eagles are good because their eyes are sharp and eagle-like, whereas pigeons are bad because they have silly round eyes which make them look as dumb as pigeons.
Personally, I blame Disney for the whole mess.
As a vegetarian, sorry guys to say this, but you really have to get off your pro-meat high horses as it were. It really isn't a problem.
Each to their own. You may like hunting your food or fishing, so good luck there. I have no problem with it. (You would however be a little less excited by the idea if the animals could shoot back, but hey, that's not going to happen).
For the record I don't eat fish or any meat now. I used to, many years ago before I became veggie; sometimes I miss the convenience of meat and fish but mostly not worried by it. I also have no problem, unlike a lot of vegans, with honey (I largely think the bee has done with it) but I admit gelatin is a problem as it is routinely added to lots of things. Maybe things that don't totally need it.
Oh and it ought to be vegetarian cheese, of course. No rennet. And as for eggs... would hate to give up my cakes. Bah!
Now, if your original post is talking about hypocrisy in humans, then go for it. People who say one thing and do another are not entirely uncommon, meat-eaters or not. Veggies are probably then the least dangerous of the hypocrites: it just takes time to sort them out.
"Veggies are probably then the least dangerous of the hypocrites"
Amen to that.
I'd put the whole thing under the heading "Human Foibles". A common example in the geek world would be spending three hours compiling some elaborate batch file that saves 15 seconds of time. Yes, we admit it's idiotic -- but it had to be done.
It's our foilbles that make us so endearing.
And thank goodness something does.
Unless I missed it, you don't discern between the vegan who eats for pseudo-health benefits and the vegan who chooses the diet for moral reasons. If it is the latter, you have to ask whether they wear leather shoes and garments and whether they take medications derived from slaughtered animals. If I am not mistaken, insulin and Viagra both fall into that category among many others.
We now have human-derived insulin and I think synthetic insulin, but yes, insulin used to come in two flavors -- beef and pork. However, the source animals weren't killed. Dunno about Viagra. I do know moral vegans and they use synthetic materials instead of leather, eschew milk and eggs, and generally try to leave animals out of their lives.
I'm sure some vegetarians are hypocrites but that is a human foible.
Dr M -- that three hours saves 15 seconds, which would be a poor trade off. But my routines often save 15 seconds, 100 times a day, 5 days a week, for twenty people. "Developer time is cheaper than staff time." Okay, so I've done two-hours-for-fifteen-seconds with no actual payoff also. You write that like it's a bad thing.
I have known a few vegetarians who will eat fish. I have known a couple vegetarians who will eat fish and poultry.
Most vegetarians I know don't eat meat, and that includes fish and fowl.
On the other hand, I did have one vegetarian friend who fits in with your 'pretty eyes' theory. She said her guideline was that she didn't anything that had a face. So she didn't eat fish, but did eat clams.
Only eating animals with beady eyes? Why that's raaaaccciiissstttt, er, speciesist, or something....how can a person call themselves a vegetarian if they eat chicken, turkey, fish, seafood, etc? Why not be honest and call them anti-beef-and-porkers? Makes more sense.
Plants have feelings too.
And if you just try a little acid, you will see that flowers are faces.
Basically, figuring out what to eat presents endless and deep moral, spiritual, physiological and etc. conundrums. Best not to eat anything until these are resolved.
Always did consider the Pritikin diet to be pebbles and sticks.
I had a friend who identified a rule called "don't eat anything that had a mother."
Another friend was about the most dedicated vegan I can remember coming across. He did a pretty good job of avoiding leather products. A very conscientious guy.