Subject:
|
Re: Virtues of Veganism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:08:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1012 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > What I dislike are the "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat chicken(or other
> > non-veg product)" people.
>
> I was at a pary once when dietary restrictions came up in conversation
> around the grill (where I had brown-sugared vidalia onions...yum!) and a
> young woman who was about to graduate with her degree in biochemistry and
> enter grad school, while eating a loaded hot dog (all-beef frank, to be
> specific), told me that she was a vegetarian too. The conversation stopped
> for a minute, people looked around at one another, and then another topic
> resumed. It was pretty funny. But I've had a number of people tell me they
> were vegetarians too but meant that they eat only fish and plants. Weird!
Humans certainly are sometimes pretty ridiculous. We've created a
culture where people feel it is important to meet other peoples
definitions of what's right that we don't even think about what we are
doing and why we do it. On a similar note, I once had a co-worker who
always ragged on me about having snacks, and then the next day would
talk about how she had bought a bag of oreos or something the day before
and killed the whole bag in one day. Yea, I eat snacks almost every day,
and I'm sure my diet isn't perfect, but I tend to eat smaller
quantities, and most of the time I moderate my snacks (having been
raised by a mother who was very strict about how many cookies you could
have for a snack makes it a lot easier - of course this same mother now
only buys Ben and Jerry's or other "premium" ice creams which come in
pint containers because she eats the whole thing in one sitting).
> > The word 'vegetarian' used to mean what
> > 'vegan' means today, yet it was quickly diluted by vegetarians eating
> > cheese and milk.
>
> Yeah...how did that happen? When it matters, I state clearly that I'm an
> ovo-lacto vegetarian.
I don't think I've ever understood "vegetarian" to mean the same thing
that "vegan" appears to mean today, but then I'm not sure I knew any
vegetarians until college, and even then not many so I'm certainly not
very connected to the history of the term and movement.
This issue (about sliding definitions) does have me curious though. Are
there any non-modern cultures of "veganism"? There certainly are large
historical "vegetarian" cultures (much of India for example). And by
"vegetarian culture" I don't include the multitude of poor people in the
world who don't eat meat because they can't afford it.
> > Some time ago it got the new defination (at least by
> > the general public) as eating vegetables and the occasional bit of
> > chicken or fish. Last year, someone I knew refered to her friends as
> > 'vegan's but they eat cheese.' The cycle starts again. :/
>
> Ack!
This type of sliding definition is totally wrong. I'm not sure how I
feel about "vegetarian" changing meaning such that it no longer is what
is commonly known as "vegan" today, since I can understand the reasoning
behind a diet which does not include animal products which require the
animal to have died, but can include other animal products (such as
honey, milk, or unfertilized eggs). I can also understand the reasoning
behind "veganism" where no animal product is used. Of course I'm not
sure how solid and useful either of those definitions is. By my
reasoning, a "vegan" diet should not include honey, yet of the few
"vegans" I have had occasion to ask if they consume honey, I have never
had one say they don't (one specific reason honey comes up for me is
that over the past few years I have been helping run an Easter weekend
retreat which among all of it's many activities also has a Seder, for
which honey is an ingredient of the charoset).
When I get REALLY philosophical, I come to the conclusion that it is
essentially impossible to disassociate oneself with the use of animal
products in life. Sure, one can personally never use an animal product
(including it's labor), but at the very least you can not disassociate
yourself from the fact that your ancestors used animal products, and
chances are, that even if what you care about is YOUR impact on the
world (not your predecessors - a line I'm willing to let you draw),
unless you live in an isolated community, you are probably depending on
SOMEONE who uses animal products.
On the other hand, that extreme philosophical point doesn't in any way
invalidate your choice to at least eliminate direct impact, as as much
indirect impact as is possible to avoid. I respect just about anyone who
makes a choice to be "vegetarian" or "vegan" whether it is for moral or
health reasons. I have a hard time however, respecting the "occasional
vegetarian" if the person is not being honest with themselves (now if
you are honest with yourself that you feel you are making a real
difference by choosing to only eat meat once a week, I can respect
that). I can also respect the person who limits their consumption of
animal products to those which are produced more "humanely" (so long as
they are not in fact deluding themselves). If you take the time to
educate me on your dietary preferences, and I am in any way responsible
for preparation of food for you, I will do my best to meet them, though
I may not choose to go to extremes to meet them (I'm not going to cook
in separate kitchens, or go buy brand new cookware just because I'm sure
the cookware I'm going to use has had meat cooked in it).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Virtues of Veganism?
|
| (...) I have had that response on a number of occasions too. I doubt that they think their diet is less moral (though I have had someone sort-of admit that (here!)). I think that they are concerned that you're going to get all self-righteous on them (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
