conflicting messages
23 June 2006 19:09![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulUnlike my usual half-witted banter and jibes, this is a serious question about vegetarianism and veganism, although it's possible that I've been unable to extract my serious curiosity from my general habit of disdain. I'd like some honest input and feedback.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 03:46 (UTC)