Re: Becca's "-Isms"

In Becca's post she asked: does ethical vegetarianism require its subscribers to abstain from eating eggs and dairy from factory farms? Why or why not? What do you think of red meat vegetarians and pescatarians. Do they have any merit?

Technically, vegetarianism does not require one to only purchase eggs and dairy products that are cruelty-free. Although, they should try their best to abstain from anything that has to do with factory farming. Yet, on the other hand they are making a huge contribution already by not eating meat, so why should they be limited even more? Everyone should only eat eggs and dairy from local farms but that is not always an option. Vegetarians should not be singled out in their efforts to make a change, everyone is just as responsible as they are.

The fact that someone told you that they are a pescatarian for moral reasons makes a lot of sense to me. Since factory farms are so harmful to the environment, a lot of environmentalists, including one that I know, are pescatarians. The person I know claims that he cares about the environment, but not animals. (Not every pescatarian feels this way). Being a pescatarian allows one to be environmentally friendly, while still consuming meat. Also, fish live a normal, free life up until the time that they are reeled in. These animals are not stuck in a cage all their life and have minimal suffering.

As for red meat vegetarians, they probably deserve a little less merit. I really like how you said the term merit. It is a sort of badge or insignia that one should be proud of if they are a vegetarian. Over the summer I had a friend who told me she was a vegetarian. One day, I was astonished to have her sit next to me eating what was clearly chicken. This was our conversation:

" I thought you were a vegetarian?"

"I am, but I eat chicken."

"Well, you're not a vegetarian then, you are a selective omnivore."

"People don't know what that is, and it is just easier to say 'I'm a vegetarian.' "

That comment really bothered me, especially how this girl made an effort to mention that she was a vegetarian whenever she could. I told her that she was falsely labeling herself and taking credit for something that she was not. The discussion went on.

I myself only eat chicken, yet would never say, "I'm a vegetarian" just because it is more convenient or I am worried that someone might not know what I mean. People who only eat chicken do deserve some merit, but certainly not to the extent that full out vegetarians do. They deserve this because they are avoiding meat to an extent. The typical person in our society eats fish, beef, pork, chicken and sometimes deer. So 3 out of four or five isn't that bad. Here is my reasoning for choosing chicken as my only meat source:

Pigs are very intelligent, they are more intelligent than dogs. I do not want to eat the smartest animal on the farm. Cows and other livestock contribute pollution to the environment more than any other source. And fish, I just don't find them appetizing.

Why should someone subside from all types of meat? In my view any absence helps. One less steak bought is one less cow killed. I do not understand why it has to be as extreme as you either have to eat all animals or none. I guess I really like chicken because it tastes so good and it is really difficult to give it up. So I figure if I cannot give up chicken and be happy, then I should limit myself to the amount of chicken I consume and give up all other animal sources. If everyone just choose one or two different meat sources and limited themselves to the amount of those animals then a lot less animals would be killed.

Question: For all of the non-vegetarians out there, do you think that it is possible to choose one meat source and be happy with how your diet affects you?

A Taste For Vegetarianism

Taste, a sense that tells us if we enjoy or do not enjoy a certain type of food or drink. This opinion in result, determines what we prefer to consume. In class today it dawned on me that no matter what the excuse for not being a vegetarian (not that you need an excuse) it all comes down to taste. No matter how busy someone is, what someones religion is, or how strong the peer pressure is, if they didn't like how meat tasted they wouldn't eat it. My argument is that the main reason why it is hard to be a vegetarian is because people enjoy the way meat tastes. Any other argument is an excuse, cover-up reason, or a reason that would not be valid unless the person liked the way meat tasted.
I have a hard time comprehending the argument that, someone is too busy to be a vegetarian. There are many foods you do not have to cook, and meat is not one of them. It takes a lot of time to make a meal with meat in it. People who are really busy live off of granola bars and protein shakes. If you did not enjoy the way meat tasted you would be able to find time to think of alternative options.
Some religions justify the consumption of meat. Yet, those religions do not say that you have to eat meat. If you did not enjoy meat, it would not be against your religion not to eat meat.
The Peer pressure argument, is not valid by itself, it is difficult to not be influenced by your friend's food choices only if you liked them in the first place. Say for example, you and some of your friends go to another one of your friend's house. Your friend, whose house you went over just made Brussels sprouts. Hypothetically, you hate Brussels sprouts, the thought of eating them makes you sick inside. All of your friends like them and are enjoying them together.
Now let's say the situation above is the same except instead of Brussels sprouts it is pot roast. In this situation you are a new vegetarian and have not eaten meat in a month. This pot roast smells amazing, and your friend asks you if you want some and you say no. All of your other friends say yes, and you are sitting there watching everyone eat what you cannot have. Finally, you cave and have a little bit.
The fact that your friends were eating Brussels sprouts does not change the appeal of Brussels sprouts. Yet, the fact that they are eating pot roast does change the appeal. It is easy to subside from eating meat to a new vegetarian, or at least easier when influence is not around. Yet, when around others who eat meat it is difficult because they are reminded of how good it tastes. Peer pressure would not be a factor if they did not enjoy what was being persuaded. Just like someone who is on a diet and gives in when they see their friends eating a fresh batch of cookies. They could of easily avoided abstaining from eating cookies if they did not see their friends eating them. Out of sight, out of mind!
. Eating something that tastes good is reinforcing. Ceding to continue what is reinforcing is not always the easiest thing to do. In the hypothetical situations, it wasn't the pressure that was "too much" it was your will power that was not enough or the reinforcing feeling was too strong.

Question: Can you think of a reason for not being a vegatarian that does not have anything to do with taste preference? It may be hidden, I challenge you.