Some questions

[den]

When did Animal Rights and Vegetarianism become linked? It seems almost every LJ community on Animal Rights is also a hard-core Vegan group.

What is the difference between Vegetarians and Vegans? Is it sort of like the difference between those who like Furry art and those who like Anthropomorphic art?

And the next vegetarian who calls me a "carnivore" will be called a "herbivore." I felt a little peckish up at the Mall this morning, so I bought a late-breakfast corned beef, lettuce and tomato sandwich. The lady beside me, who bought a "Wholemeal. No butter! And are your vegetables organic?" salad sandwich, snorted and muttered "carnivore" under her breath.

"Omnivore, actually," I said. "I eat meat, veggies, grain, dairy and fish."

"Well I don't kill animals, and will have no part in that activity. I love animals too much."

"Do you have a cat?" I asked. I resisted telling her that I love animals too, and kill them on a regular basis.

She looked startled. "Yes! And I take very good care of him!"

"Then your should look up the term 'obligate carnivore' and think about it. Cats are obligate carnivores." She stormed off with her herbivore sandwich and the bloke behind the counter gave me a funny look. "It means they must eat meat," I explained. "If she has a cat then she must feed it meat or she's neglecting it."

He laughed, then told me his salad bar was organic; his dad grew the tomatos and lettuses in hydroponic racks in a greenhouse near the river.

That sounds organic enough for me.

Comments

It's a matter of perspective

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

The thing is, at $35k your family (happily) is at well over three times what is considered the poverty level for a three-person family.

If you look at this from the perspective of someone who is hovering at or near the poverty level for their family, it has two effects:

1. Moral vegetarianism is beyond your means.
2. Your family as it stands now suddenly becomes "wealthy."

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[jenny_evergreen]

Actually, we're just about 3 times better off than the poverty level for a 2 person family according to the 2003 guidelines, but either way, we're nitpicking, since the government's "estimates" are beyond ridiculous. On the other hand, compared to most of the people in the world, even the poorest USAn is wealthy.

From a realistic, culturally-adjusted perspective, we're a hop, skip, and a jump from homelessness or hunger. Better than actually being there, of course, but one does tend to get one's back up when referred to as "wealthy" when one is in our situation, so forgive me if I sound a bit edgy on the topic.

IMO, it's misleading to say only the wealthy can afford moral vegetarianism if you refrain from explaining what you mean by "wealthy", and I know that you are above that kind of below-the-belt manipulation, which is why I commented.

Using cultural standards, no, you don't have to be wealthy. That said, yes, it is much easier the more you make, nor do I personally condemn anyone for eating meat, although, yes, if you CAN choose not to, I do think perhaps a bit more highly of the person who makes the choice in the same direction I do, unsurprisingly. That's just human nature...just like it's human nature for people who disagree to feel that one of the two must be wrong, despite the fact that it is perfectly possible for both to be right.

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

First, I should point out you're not the sort of person I'd be having this discussion with anyway. I reserve this very heavy-handed argument for the worst of the vegetarian and vegan proselytizers, who are so smug in their middle-class vegetarianism that they fail to see the social implications of what they're preaching.

Second, I did explain what I meant by wealthy: it's a matter of perspective. Just because you don't feel particularly wealthy doesn't mean there aren't thousands of families who would trade financial places with you in a heartbeat. Whether the metric you use is an arbitrary fincancial or arbitrary social one, you're always going to be better off than many, many people. This, in my mind, is something to feel grateful for, not "get your back up" about.

Third, the problem, of course, isn't with vegetarianism, it's with society. I find it topsy-turvy to have a society in which eating meat is cheaper than eating vegetables. But that's the way things are here, and ignoring it doesn't make it not so. The simple truth of the fact is that for a goodly portion of our society, moral vegetarianism is at best a joke and at worst classist.

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[jenny_evergreen]

First, yeah, I realize that, and, in some ways, probably shouldn't have said anything.

Second, I AM grateful for everything I have, much more so than many people, ime. Indeed, I am, as is pretty much everyone using the 'net, better off than lots and lots of other people. My point is simply that saying one has to be wealthy in order to be a vegetarian is misleading unless one defines what they mean by wealthy accurately. I point this out because I don't want Jane or Joe Whoever to think "Gee, I was gonna be a vegetarian, but I hear only the wealthy can, so why bother researching it."
I'm concerned about a fair playing field for the opposing viewpoints. Since I don't in any way try to convince people to be vegetarian or even speak negatively of meat-eating, this is as militant as I get. ;)

Third, I agree that society is a problem. And I think I'll leave it at that.

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I'll get Callahan to serve us a round of tomato juice, and we can toast: "Society is to blame!"

8)

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[jenny_evergreen]

*grin* I'll drink to that! (And happen to really love tomato juice! ;)

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

I doubt anybody is ever going to say "Gee, I was gonna be a vegetarian but I hear only the wealthy can."

What I think you'll find is that many people will say, "Gee, isn't it nice for you that you can afford to be a vegetarian. I can't, because both me and my husband work 40+ hours a week and we have three kids and quite frankly I don't have the time or the money." Pretending like there's some sort of moral high ground in that situation is insulting, and quite frankly people who do it are only doing so because they've never been there.

Proselytizing moral vegetarians always claim a this point that they have been there, and then I get to ask them how many kids they had when they were so low, and how many hours they worked a week, and what their income actually was. And at about that time they all start to splutter, because they haven't been there. By definition if they had been there they wouldn't have been able to afford their lifestyle. It's not an argument you can out-logic and it doesn't matter how you define "wealthy" because it's a truism, and that's what makes it so useful in stopping the proselytizing.

Re: It's a matter of perspective

[jenny_evergreen]

"I doubt anybody is ever going to say "Gee, I was gonna be a vegetarian but I hear only the wealthy can.""

You're wrong. I did. That's why I feel the need to make the point. Yeah, I ended up learning for myself, but I'm the stubborn type. Other people might not, so there you go.

The underlying point...that eating meat isn't inherently wrong and is not an option for everyone...is what such people really can't argue against, because it's the simple truth.