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}
another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 26 Jun 2006 16:10 (UTC)You may not remember it, but early on after we first started talking (yeah, yeah, a millennia ago as far as what has happened since) you asked me about my vegetarian habits then proceeded to tell me that you resented that someone who you were cooking for would give you parameters according to their issues. When someone came to YOUR house, you didn't want them telling you how to live/cook/etc. I decided then and there that I could never eat your cooking because your statement meant I couldn't trust you to respect MY choices, whether I was at your house or my own. Asking what is in something isn't by definition disrespectful. You've certainly come a ways since then, but there's a fragment of that still echoing to me in this discussion.
I realize you now regret the choice of "sacrifice" in your post for the stir it's caused, and with good reason. It speaks more to your (perceived) attitude than anything else you said afterward. Also, it's too easy to poke in response to it, so I won't bother.
No one should poke someone else's moral structure if it isn't hurting them. You chastising vegetarians for inconsistencies is in many ways not much different than Hindus hassling you that you can't be Hindu if you don't marry a Hindu girl, join the temple, etc. We are all subsets of the larger, un-accepting culture and not a one of us should play "holier than thou". If too many vegs have preached at you, remember that you have, perhaps inadvertently (at least in my case) preached critically at them. None of us is of such perfect moral fiber that we lack any flaws in our logic structure. In college I finally became completely vegetarian when my roommate asked me (with zero judgment in her voice) "If you know it is wrong, why do you do it?" and so I didn't eat meat again. It was that simple for me. To me, it is wrong, therefore I will not participate in as much as I am able. What you do is your business, from what you eat to who you sleep with. It's all the same issue to me.
For my part, it comes from living as simply as I can. Meat is not something I want or need. It is something I find distasteful in it's cultural/social/environmental implication IN THE MANNER IT IS USUALLY OFFERED. That is a vital point, sorry for the all caps though. It has to do with eating real food. I honestly have no great issue with truly free-range meat (though it is difficult to prove unless the animal lived free and was hunted and killed quickly). I tweaked out a few people by saying that if I died young and healthy, I would prefer to be eaten than to be buried. Don't waste good stuff. I respect meat eaters who would in fact kill their own food. I couldn't and see no reason that I should pay someone else to do my killing for me. Those are just some of the reasons. I have little issue that other cultures eat bugs, cats, dogs and whatnot. It is what is culturally appropriate for them, and I have little stomach for any of it. Ditto for eating all parts of the animal. If you're grossed out by the liver, why would you eat the ass?
I was drawn to Indian food when I was in high school in part because it was so yummy and bonus: without being meat. So I started to learn to cook, and it all grew from there. My family is very meat'n'potatoes, so it is useful to have analogs around in order to deal with them and not be a social liability. Once, and ONLY once, my father made a disparaging remark about tofu and I told him I would not cook for him if he insulted what I made. He never did again because I'm a better cook than he is.
That's enough random blathering. Hope it shed some additional light. All vegs are not the same, just like any other subgroup.
Re: another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 4 Jul 2006 00:53 (UTC)You may not remember it, but early on after we first started talking
Um, yes, I remember it quite well. It had more impact on me than the rest of the conversation, which was pretty major in my life as well. I've thought about that conversation quite often over the last few years, and for a long time whenever Christine and I would get sick of arguing, we'd talk about what you said.
I liked you, wanted to cook for you, but somehow my attitude towards the world prevented that from ever happening.
It was one of the reasons why I've spent the last few years trying to make all the changes I've been working towards.
Re: another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 4 Jul 2006 02:26 (UTC)When you come back to balance (or something close to it), please elaborate.