Vegetarians Selfish?

alfablue

Overgeneralising again - pseudo-meat products are repulsive as they are too reminiscent of meat.

alfablue

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Why assume, if they are " not asking for it expressly", that they are indeed expecting this?

Who is assuming anything?

You are twisting what I said round. I am specifically talking about a specific type of person ie the one who expects.
This is not to do with the host making an assumption


Try stepping back from your entrenched pro vegetarianism attitude and consider the bigger question

Then explain to me how one knows a veggie expects a veggie meal if they do not express this.

As for stepping back, the fact that I might be a veggie should not preclude me from having and sharing an opinion on the topic. My opinion on the topic (to sum up) is that I do not consider it selfish for a veggie not to offer meat to a meat eater - reasons already given.

I might well have that opinion if I was a meat eater too - if I was a reasonably tolerant one, that is!

Porgy

ivancarlos wrote:

Is it true that Hitler was a vegetarian? :twisted:

He enjoyed eating lobster. So probably not.

nwallace

I have no problem with pasta in a cheese sauce that's a non-meat dish, though it does contain dairy products.

I know a vegetarian who has no problem cooking meat and someone who eats meat but can't face cooking the stuff.

I won't post the pictures I took of a roasted hog hanging well cooked over an open fire, still don't understand why my friends couldn't do the butchers bit themselves and won't dispatch and eat their excess chickens.... ok so they didn't have the tools to kill the pig and the chickens are worth more alive but................


This post wasn't fuelled by the alleged hypocrisy shown by heather mills recently per chance was it?

spen666

alfablue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Why assume, if they are " not asking for it expressly", that they are indeed expecting this?

Who is assuming anything?

You are twisting what I said round. I am specifically talking about a specific type of person ie the one who expects.
This is not to do with the host making an assumption


Try stepping back from your entrenched pro vegetarianism attitude and consider the bigger question

Then explain to me how one knows a veggie expects a veggie meal if they do not express this.

As for stepping back, the fact that I might be a veggie should not preclude me from having and sharing an opinion on the topic. My opinion on the topic (to sum up) is that I do not consider it selfish for a veggie not to offer meat to a meat eater - reasons already given.

I might well have that opinion if I was a meat eater too - if I was a reasonably tolerant one, that is!

You are not answering the question raised but are answering a separate one- effectively spinning the question to avoid the key thing asked

Richrd2205

ContrelaMontre wrote:

Richrd2205 wrote:

I must apologise if you found that vitriolic. I was quite sharp about the "supposed to" line (because the idea that we're supposed to do anything is really quite daft IMO), but it seems OK other than that
I must disagree that the comments made are banal & that may be the reason, you find the response disproportionate.
I would also suggest that labelling vegetarianism as fundamentalist & extremist is, in itself, quite a fundamentalist response....
I have never asked for special treatment, so am I safe to ignore your comments?

I thought it's axiomatic that vegetarianism is fundamentalist as it rejects all eating of meat and meat products. Not some, not most, all. That seems a pretty fundamentalist viewpoint. In fact most vegetarians would argue that killing animals is always wrong. Surely this is fundamentalism based on someone's moral position.

I'll retract the extremist bit for the time being, as it is probably unfair to say all are extremist.

If you have never asked or expected to be served a vegetarian meal in someone else's house then indeed you are not selfish.

If you expect to be served a vegetarian meal you are selfish.

If you expect someone else to refrain from eating meat you are very selfish.

If you refuse to handle meat/provide meat you are selfish*, but not as selfish as the person (Spen?) who expects it of you!

*I have a feeling a few might disagree with this, but think before you type please as just because I've said it is selfish doesn't mean I've said it's wrong. By selfish I mean that it is entirely for your own beliefs. It is not an altruistic action. To serve or handle meat if you are vegetarian would be truly altruistic.

OK, I understand your calling it fundamentalist, however, my understanding of fundamentalism is about the adherence, & the manner thereof, to the principles...
So I would disagree with you: you call cutting off hands wrong, not some hands, all...
Surely, it's the way in which the principle is applied?
I've never asked anyone to compromise their principles to feed me.
I've never asked someone to cater for my (unusual) beliefs.
I've worked in a slaughterhouse to ensure that meat products are safe (I'm a qualified meat inspector & was vegan when I qualified & practiced).
I share a house with my partner who is an omnivore & has bacon for breakfast every few Sundays.
Do you see why I get upset when I'm labelled as a selfish fundamentalist?
I hope no offence has been caused & given how you have explained things, none has been taken

Ashtrayhead

ivancarlos wrote:

Is it true that Hitler was a vegetarian? :twisted:

No.

Ashtrayhead

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Why assume, if they are " not asking for it expressly", that they are indeed expecting this?

Who is assuming anything?

You are twisting what I said round. I am specifically talking about a specific type of person ie the one who expects.
This is not to do with the host making an assumption


Try stepping back from your entrenched pro vegetarianism attitude and consider the bigger question

Then explain to me how one knows a veggie expects a veggie meal if they do not express this.

As for stepping back, the fact that I might be a veggie should not preclude me from having and sharing an opinion on the topic. My opinion on the topic (to sum up) is that I do not consider it selfish for a veggie not to offer meat to a meat eater - reasons already given.

I might well have that opinion if I was a meat eater too - if I was a reasonably tolerant one, that is!

You are not answering the question raised but are answering a separate one- effectively spinning the question to avoid the key thing asked

I've got it now! It's a trick question. No, they're not selfish because they've invited people round for dinner.

peanut

spen666 wrote:

How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?

on no ........here we go again :roll:

can and worms are two words that come to mind

John Stevenson

I've never understood why non-veggies get so bent out of shape about other people's choices of what they do and don't eat.

Host/guest issues here are a matter of simple friendliness, courtesy and respect for other people's ethical positions.

In 20+ years of being a tree-hugging commie pinko subversive lefty vego weirdo I've encountered the situation of a carnivore demanding I serve them meat exactly once. I declined, and the person in question ate elsewhere, sparing me an evening of his boorish, obnoxious company. Result, frankly.

On the other hand, I once had a friend who is a rabid meat-eater (the kind of guy whose idea of a fun evening involves rugby on the telly, beer and roast pig's feet) call me after I'd fed him going, "Hey there was no meat in that meal and I didn't even realise till I got home!"

cygnet

spen666 wrote:

Most non- vegetarians will, if inviting a vegetarian round for a meal, go to the trouble of cooking a non-meat option for the vegetarian

How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?

If my omnivorous friends make it known that they would like me to cook them something containing meat, then at least 1. I would not automatically cook it for them, mainly because I'm rubbish at cooking a good meat dish. I don't know any carnivores. If I did, and if I invited them round for dinner I would probably burn some steak (or other favoured meat - I can burn a mean pork chop too) for them. Same goes for any other eating preferences. Don't eat broccoli? If they tell me I would accomodate them. They may end up eating dry rice crackers if their demands are more than my culinary skills can cope with, that's all.

Porgy

As a vegetarian I probably would have allowed a meat eater to bring her / his own meal.

But I did better than that - all my friends were vegetarian or Vegan (Vegans could be a nusiance).

Now I eat meat and all my friends eat meat

makes life much easier.

t4tomo

vegetarian males are significantly more attractive to women than their meat-eating counterparts...

what a load of rot. Vegetarians are all pale & spotty.

That may be attractive to vegetarian women as one tends to find people with similar characteristics to yourself attractive.

I belive that how come ugly people end up getting married

Porgy

t4tomo wrote:

Vegetarians are all pale & spotty

and all cyclists are lycra clad hooligans riding on the pavement!!

chrisjsmith

Anecdotal evidence against veggies:

When one breaks wind next to you, you will vomit. Seriously.

alfablue

There is nothing more offensive than a meat-eater's wind! Veggie wind, whilst often abundant, is as fresh as a meadow in spring by comparison - not anecdote, either!

A plentiful meat diet favors the formation of gases when the former contains much connective tissue, since, owing to the large quantity of meat and the resistance offered by the connective tissue, the digestive fluids are not able to fully digest it, and a considerable portion remains to be subjected to the action of the bacteria in the colon. The longer it remains there, the more gases may be formed.

chrisjsmith

Yes but us carnivorous bastards emit a warm and meaty smell, not a rotting drain smell.

Porgy

chrisjsmith wrote:

Anecdotal evidence against veggies:

When one breaks wind next to you, you will vomit. Seriously.

I've not noticed that my farts smell any better since i've been eating meat.

Jon G

Porgy wrote:

I was a veggie for years and never tried to convert anyone from eating meat. It was the meat eaters who picked fights with me. I tried to keep it to myself but obviously it became fairly obvious that I never ate meat when I went out. And then the argument began. they'd want to know why. Then they'd pick holes in my reasons. Then they'd tell me they'd prefer it if I'd not ram my views down their throats :roll: .

Rather like the motorists who seem to get terribly insecure when they meet someone who can drive & can afford a car, but chooses not to use one. I've several times had people find out I don't have a car and start quizing me as to why then start trying to persuade me I should get one. Some seem to see the act of chosing not to be a driver as being a pesonal afront. Presumably they feel anyone doing anything different to their own choices implies rejection and hence criticism of those choices, and they can't stand the idea that anyone might citicise them.

Jon

Spare Tyre

Spen666: "How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?"

Spen, if you came to my house I would go to the trouble of cooking you a dinner that is (hopefully) tasty, nutritious and enjoyable. However, the meal would not contain any meat. A decent meal does not "have" to contain beef, chicken or whatever, any more than it "has" to contain kidney beans or roast potatoes. I think the idea of giving guests an "option" only applies to people who have an allergy or a strong aversion to particular foods.

spen666

Spare Tyre wrote:

Spen666: "How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?"

Spen, if you came to my house I would go to the trouble of cooking you a dinner that is (hopefully) tasty, nutritious and enjoyable. However, the meal would not contain any meat. A decent meal does not "have" to contain beef, chicken or whatever, any more than it "has" to contain kidney beans or roast potatoes. I think the idea of giving guests an "option" only applies to people who have an allergy or a strong aversion to particular foods.

how about if said person has a "strong aversion" to meals not containing meat?

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Spare Tyre wrote:

Spen666: "How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?"

Spen, if you came to my house I would go to the trouble of cooking you a dinner that is (hopefully) tasty, nutritious and enjoyable. However, the meal would not contain any meat. A decent meal does not "have" to contain beef, chicken or whatever, any more than it "has" to contain kidney beans or roast potatoes. I think the idea of giving guests an "option" only applies to people who have an allergy or a strong aversion to particular foods.

how about if said person has a "strong aversion" to meals not containing meat?

It's logically impossible to have a strong aversion to a non-existent thing - ie, no meat.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Spare Tyre wrote:

Spen666: "How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?"

Spen, if you came to my house I would go to the trouble of cooking you a dinner that is (hopefully) tasty, nutritious and enjoyable. However, the meal would not contain any meat. A decent meal does not "have" to contain beef, chicken or whatever, any more than it "has" to contain kidney beans or roast potatoes. I think the idea of giving guests an "option" only applies to people who have an allergy or a strong aversion to particular foods.

how about if said person has a "strong aversion" to meals not containing meat?

It's logically impossible to have a strong aversion to a non-existent thing - ie, no meat.

It is not logically impossible to have an aversion to eating meals without meat in them ( It might not be sensible, but that is a different matter!)

Your statement is a cunning play on words- the aversion referred to is to "a meal without meat" not to a non-existent thing. A meal without meat can exist

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Spare Tyre wrote:

Spen666: "How many vegetarians when inviting round a meat eater go to the trouble of cooking them a meat option?"

Spen, if you came to my house I would go to the trouble of cooking you a dinner that is (hopefully) tasty, nutritious and enjoyable. However, the meal would not contain any meat. A decent meal does not "have" to contain beef, chicken or whatever, any more than it "has" to contain kidney beans or roast potatoes. I think the idea of giving guests an "option" only applies to people who have an allergy or a strong aversion to particular foods.

how about if said person has a "strong aversion" to meals not containing meat?

It's logically impossible to have a strong aversion to a non-existent thing - ie, no meat.

It is not logically impossible to have an aversion to eating meals without meat in them ( It might not be sensible, but that is a different matter!)

Your statement is a cunning play on words- the aversion referred to is to "a meal without meat" not to a non-existent thing. A meal without meat can exist

Noones ever called me cunning before - although I often get called something similar.

Actually I thought I'd merely reframed the terms of reference 8)

spen666

Porgy wrote:

...
Noones ever called me cunning before - although I often get called something similar.

...

Stunning?

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

...
Noones ever called me cunning before - although I often get called something similar.

...

Stunning?

yeah that's it

nwallace

Jon G wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I was a veggie for years and never tried to convert anyone from eating meat. It was the meat eaters who picked fights with me. I tried to keep it to myself but obviously it became fairly obvious that I never ate meat when I went out. And then the argument began. they'd want to know why. Then they'd pick holes in my reasons. Then they'd tell me they'd prefer it if I'd not ram my views down their throats :roll: .

Rather like the motorists who seem to get terribly insecure when they meet someone who can drive & can afford a car, but chooses not to use one. I've several times had people find out I don't have a car and start quizing me as to why then start trying to persuade me I should get one. Some seem to see the act of chosing not to be a driver as being a pesonal afront. Presumably they feel anyone doing anything different to their own choices implies rejection and hence criticism of those choices, and they can't stand the idea that anyone might citicise them.

Jon

Never had that problem, but usually because I have already explained why I can't be bothered with sitting in a queue of traffic to get through Dundee for an hour when I could either cycle it in 45 mins or get the bus which due to it's route just barges into the first quarter of one of the 3 traffic jams. and pay £2.40 a day when the bus costs £2 and as I ignore in that cost for the car Fuel, Wear and Tear cycling costs £0.00.

What I do get is people wondering why I put up with a car that is almost as old as me and must cost more to run. They miss the fact that the thing has cost me around 7 grand in 4 years doing around 6000 miles a year including petrol, can get 35mpg out of it on the sort of journeys I do in it. If I was bothered about the green factor in it all I could also point out that the environmental cost of crushing the old Saab and building a polo blue motion would be more than the car spews out in a year or 2, but no one thinks of that.

gandalfcp

I wonder if meat and dairy eaters are selfish for adhering to the most barbaric and criminally wasteful means of food production ever devised?

mr pumpy

A ridiculous OP. The answer is blindingly obvious.
Are meat-eaters ethically opposed to eating meals which do not contain meat?

OffTheBackAdam