Be a vegetarian this Easter!

[Bubbles]

deciding enter something is not wrong, and thinking you are correct, is moralising

Pot kettle black

[Nearly Sane]

Saying about being vegetarian is moralising.
People are entitled to say eating meat is right If others start moralising about just eating vegetables.

It's hypocritical to accuse meat eaters of moralising,  given the subject of this thread is moralising on the behalf of vegetarians.

So vegetarians are doing something 'bad' in your view by expressing their opinion, that meat eaters are not by expressing their's? How does that work? And how does thinking that both might be moralising make someone hypocritical?

[Aruntraveller]

Vegetarianism is not a fad - it's been around for centuries.

I have no strong feelings either way (Lamb in the oven as we speak - but a vegetarian pasta dish last night) - howeverm to declare it a fad is to fly in the face of evidence and truth, Ad-O.

[Bubbles]

So vegetarians are doing something 'bad' in your view by expressing their opinion, that meat eaters are not by expressing their's? How does that work? And how does thinking that both might be moralising make someone hypocritical?

They are when the are criticising meat eaters by trying to make them feel guilty, which is what happens after Srirams initial post, people are made to feel guilty ( hence all the " I could be a vegetarian etc" ) then Sriram came back with a post on what Jesus would do etc.

Hypocritical comes in when the meat eaters are described as moralising just because they don't choose to be vegetarian and respond in kind.

That's how it works.

When the guilt trip doesn't work, meat eaters are then accused of moralising.

It isn't the meat eaters who brought the subject up.

[Nearly Sane]

They are when the are criticising meat eaters by trying to make them feel guilty, which is what happens after Srirams initial post, people are made to feel guilty ( hence all the " I could be a vegetarian etc" ) then Sriram came back with a post on what Jesus would do etc.

Hypocritical comes in when the meat eaters are described as moralising just because they don't choose to be vegetarian and respond in kind.

That's how it works.

When the guilt trip doesn't work, meat eaters are then accused of moralising.

It isn't the meat eaters who brought the subject up.

So if anyone states a moral stance before anyone else, then they are moralising and bad? And any reply from anyone who tells then they are wrong isn't? That sort of buggers any form of meaningful moral discourse.

By the way,  I didn't make any generalisation that meat eaters are moralising, just that ad_o was. So your accusation of hypocrisy is based on a misrepresentation. And, I did n't say that vegetarians were not moralistic ng, so I still fail to see what hypocrisy you meant.

[Bubbles]

So if anyone states a moral stance before anyone else, then they are moralising and bad? And any reply from anyone who tells then they are wrong isn't? That sort of buggers any form of meaningful moral discourse.

By the wat, I didn't make any generalisation that meat eaters are moralising, just that ad_o was. So your accusation of hypocrisy is based on a misrepresentation.

Yes, if anyone takes a moral stance on something and presents it as a criticism of others and that their way is superior, they are moralising.

Especially on controversial subjects that others feel they are fed up with, due to it being the same old tired subject of how in an ideal world they should be different

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, if anyone takes a moral stance on something and presents it as a criticism of others and that their way is superior, they are moralising.

Especially on controversial subjects that others feel they are fed up with, due to it being the same old tired subject of how in an ideal world they should be different

I think rape is bad, I think my morality is superior to rapists and I think they are bad.


So if a rapist disagrees with that , you according to this thread think, I was somehow doing something you see as 'bad' and the rapist would not if they said I was wring for thinking rape was bad.

[Bubbles]

I think rape is bad, I think my morality is superior to rapists and I think they are bad.


So if a rapist disagrees with that , you according to this thread think, I was somehow doing something you see as 'bad' and the rapist would not if they said I was wring for thinking rape was bad.

We are not discussing rapists though, thinking rapists are bad, is not a controversial idea.
Whereas thinking that eating meat is morally a bad thing, is.

[Nearly Sane]

We are not discussing rapists though, thinking rapists are bad, is not a controversial idea.
Whereas thinking that eating meat is morally a bad thing, is.

No, we were discussing you logic that whoever starts a discussion saying some action is wrong they are doing something 'bad" in your view. It didn't used to be controversial in this country to own slaves, was William Wilberforce just moralising?
To

[Robbie]

Everything is so black & white to you NEarlySane!

Life has lots of grey areas.

Rose objects to veggies being evangelical about it, and acting superior. I've not enocountered that, only with vegans, but Rose might have.

No-one here is objecting to meat eaters, even sririam accepts thaat we in west are generally carivores.

We're discussing the health benefits as well as ethics.  Rose is right that fish is good food value.  It's up to each of us to decide what is right for us as individuals.

[Bubbles]

I think you are sometimes too but on this point I'm spot on, pal. They're fads, like lactose and gluten free products. Mosr just jump on the band wagon and feel smug about themselves.

People need lactose and gluten free, not because they are fads but because without them they suffer a lot of stomach pain.

It's like peanuts, to some people, they are lethal.
Some types of foods have adverse reactions on some people, they are not " making a fuss"

I've known caterers just think peanut allergy is a fad, but it isn't, you can kill someone.

What you " choose" to eat can be a fad, but people who are allergic to peanuts, gluten or lactose have body that reacts adversely to something.

You can be allergic to just about anything, one friend of mine is so allergic to blue cheese her throat swells up and she has to be rushed off to hospital for an injection.

I'd never assume someone else's eating habits was just a fad, because it might not be.

[Nearly Sane]

Everything is so black & white to you NEarlySane!

Life has lots of grey areas.

Rose objects to veggies being evangelical about it, and acting superior. I've not enocountered that, only with vegans, but Rose might have.

No-one here is objecting to meat eaters, even sririam accepts thaat we in west are generally carivores.

We're discussing the health benefits as well as ethics.  Rose is right that fish is good food value.  It's up to each of us to decide what is right for us as individuals.

In what way do you think that some on both sides might be moralising is seeing things in black and white, as opposed to vegetarians are moralising?

[Rhiannon]

Who here is being 'made to feel guilty'? And if someone is happy and secure in their moral choices then that is never an issue anyway.

[torridon]

Vegetarianism and veganism are just fads. Most who abstain from meat and animal products are just holier than thou wankers who love the smell of their own farts. Until hell freezes over I'm eating meat.

Have you never been to India ?

You really ought to get out about bit more, and grow

[torridon]

I have lived my entire life (very satisfactorily) eating rice, wheat, pulses and veggies. Why would I eat some lab grown 'meat'....whatever that is?!

Humans evolved as omnivores, it might be that your digestive system is optimised for a diet that includes some flesh and you are denying it.  Also, you might find it tastes nice.  Lab grown meat would bypass the ethical problems of killing sentient animals who don't want to be eaten and cannot fight back against us,

[ad_orientem]

People need lactose and gluten free, not because they are fads but because without them they suffer a lot of stomach pain.

It's like peanuts, to some people, they are lethal.
Some types of foods have adverse reactions on some people, they are not " making a fuss"

I've known caterers just think peanut allergy is a fad, but it isn't, you can kill someone.

What you " choose" to eat can be a fad, but people who are allergic to peanuts, gluten or lactose have body that reacts adversely to something.

You can be allergic to just about anything, one friend of mine is so allergic to blue cheese her throat swells up and she has to be rushed off to hospital for an injection.

I'd never assume someone else's eating habits was just a fad, because it might not be.

But most who claim to be lactose or gluten intolerant actually aren't, they've just jumped onto the bandwagon convincing themselves that they are. Because of that it's almost like you can only get lactose free milk products but they're rank. Lactose intolerant then don't consume dairy. Simple.

[Rhiannon]

But most who claim to be lactose or gluten intolerant actually aren't, they've just jumped onto the bandwagon convincing themselves that they are. Because of that it's almost like you can only get lactose free milk products but they're rank. Lactose intolerant then don't consume dairy. Simple.

Why shouldn't someone with an allergy or intolerance not be able to buy alternatives?

[Robbie]

Quite agree Rhiannon.

Ad-o, how do you know that people jump on the bandwagon? Maybe they've tried different diets and eventually found what suits and what doesn't suit them. Children,even babies, can go through horrors until they are diagnosed & its often parents who find out through trial and error.We should not be too quick to judge others.

[ad_orientem]

I've nothing against alternatives. It's when the alternatives become the norm which irks me. Dairy is meant to have lactose in it. I want my dairy with lactose in it, but because of a few now nearly everything is lactose free which tastes rank. Same goes for gluten free. Try and buy cheese over here that isn't lactose free.

[Rhiannon]

My granddad was a widower when he met my nan. As well as his wife he'd lost a baby girl to 'malnutrition'. The baby was a huge secret - the stigma of having a baby die of that was awful and I think it was maybe what killed his first wife. Now of course we know it was almost certainly some kind of milk allergy that made the baby malnourished, and back in those days (early 30's, in a poor area) they would have just tried to keep fattening her up. I guess another possibility would have been some kind of gut malformation that these days would be treatable with surgery but the result then would have been the same. It breaks my heart to think of her.

As an aside I found out her name a while ago and had a tree planted for her so she's not forgotten.

Thank goodness we have alternatives now. My daughter needed lactose free milk but outgrew her intolerance by about six months of age. Before that she was in so much pain.

[Robbie]

That is a very sad story Rhiannon.

I've nothing against alternatives. It's when the alternatives become the norm which irks me. Dairy is meant to have lactose in it. I want my dairy with lactose in it, but because of a few now nearly everything is lactose free which tastes rank. Same goes for gluten free. Try and buy cheese over here that isn't lactose free.

I'm surprised ad-orientem. Here most stuff isn't lactose free, there is just some sold on special stands in supermarkets alongside wheat & G/F.  Everything else is normal dairy & wide variety of cheeses.

[Harrowby Hall]

I suppose - sort of in defence of Ad-O - there are people who misrepresent their relationship with gluten or lactose ...

I have a friend who is gluten intolerant and has coeliac disease. This means that she has difficulty in leading what, to the rest of us, is a normal life. We visit restaurants and find that staff, with the best of intentions, sometimes do not really understand the nature of the condition. She sometimes has to leave because the restaurant cannot accommodate her requirements, which are due to a malfunction in her autoimmune system.

I have another friend who will not eat products containing gluten ... because they contain gluten. She has no pathological condition which makes this necessary, she is simply convinced that gluten is bad because there are people who are gluten intolerant. Therefore she refuses to eat anything containing gluten. This is a fad and no rational discussion can make her change her mind.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

The issue of morality does arise in vegetarianism....especially when we consider animal rights. Britishers may consider eating dogs as wrong....but beef is ok. In India even non vegetarian Hindus will not eat beef because killing cows is considered wrong.

Many confirmed non vegetarians will not themselves kill cows or sheep or chicken for their meal.  They would happily pick it up from the supermarket but will not be associated with any killing. I am sure many people will give up meat if they visit a slaughter house. Many children would react very dramatically to killing of any animal that they have played with earlier. They may refuse to eat that meat. I am sure many of you would cringe at the idea of eating monkey brain cooked with boiling oil while the animal is still alive.

So...there is a moral issue involved with killing of animals. However, people have been eating meat for millennia and so it is a natural part of human diet in most parts of the world. So...it cannot really be considered immoral also. This is a dilemma.

The point is that morality does not remain constant through long periods of time and is not the same in every part of the world. It is relative. Morality changes. And we should be willing to accept this change....and not stick to a lifestyle merely because of some ancient religious text.  Morality is what we feel today, not what someone did thousands of years ago.

If large sections of society today consider it wrong to eat animals, then that is today's morality in that society.  We should be able to go along with that. We don't have to necessarily hold on to our habits and lifestyle.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

The point is that morality does not remain constant through long periods of time and is not the same in every part of the world. It is relative. Morality changes. And we should be willing to accept this change....and not stick to a lifestyle merely because of some ancient religious text.  Morality is what we feel today, not what someone did thousands of years ago.

Hear hear 

[Sriram]

Check this out....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/germany-meat-ban-environment-ministry_us_58ae1b24e4b01406012f962b

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

Animal agriculture is a leading cause of climate change and environmental degradation, which is why a German ministry says it’s taking a stand for vegetarianism in a new — and controversial — ban.

Barbara Hendricks, Germany’s environment minister, announced that her ministry would no longer be serving meat, fish or meat-derived products at official functions. Hendricks said her ministry must serve as a “role model” on environmental and sustainability issues.

“We want to set a good example for climate protection, because vegetarian food is more climate-friendly than meat and fish,” the ministry said in a statement this week, according to The Daily Telegraph. The ban reportedly took effect at the end of January.

The ministry mandate also states that meals served at official functions should be organically sourced, with a preference for seasonal, local and fair-trade products, reported German newspaper Bild. Ingredients should only be transported a short distance, the mandate said.

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

Not bad at all, I must say.

'There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come'.....