Why does my diet aggravate people so?

[Bohandas]

Oh, plants totally feel pain.

Focusing on the lack of a neural system is animal-centric. When one leaf is damaged, and signals are sent, and the whole plant reacts, it's not really very different. Neural systems are only one way to convey information, and there are others.

That's just a healing/immune response. Compare the reaction of a person with CIP or who is tripping on heroin and angel dust to being slashed with a knife or burned on a hot stove. Chemical signals are sent and metabolism is altered despite the lack of any pain.

[noparlpf]

I'm honestly amazed this thread didn't get locked between last night and now.

You quoted this bit. I still don't see it, unfortunately. Can you help me?

I'm not seeing it either. "Many people in this group" is pretty different from "everybody in this group." And specifying that it's not actually everybody in this group is kind of the opposite of generalising.

If you know something bothers someone and you continue to do it anyway, ESPECIALLY when they thing involves belittling, demeaning and mocking them, then that is bullying. Like, almost literally the definition.
And remember, moreover, that it isn't just one close friend doing this. It is, in OP's experience, almost every time it comes up, a constant barrage. And yes, veggos do get a whole, whole lot of that. I've come across plenty of Richardnoggin vegans, and that's what these non-vegs will be reacting to, but it doesn't make it a reasonable response in the face of a reasonable veggo who has not given any reason to warrant it.

I'm with Serpentine on this.

[cobaltstarfire]

Pretty much this. Easy easy. Though as I said, I at least try some of whatever that thing I don't particularly want is; but it's no problem if you don't...for most people.

I tend to have the opposite problem, where people are so eager to work with my dietary restrictions that it makes me feel super embarrassed and like I'm being a terrible inconvenience. Playing 20 questions about my digestive shortcomings also makes me feel really anxious, especially since my health problems are fairly generic. Irritable Bowels means that I have to avoid stuff that might ferment in my gut or are difficult to digest, which makes the list of things I need to avoid, or eat sparingly very long, and seemingly arbitrary, and differs from person to person. (Milk for example is a common trigger food for people with IBS, but I can usually drink it fine except for in the mornings)


I'm quite happy to just not eat meals with others, but I think for people who are more social, expecting them to just never go out as some have suggested is really...unfair?

[Keltest]

I'm quite happy to just not eat meals with others, but I think for people who are more social, expecting them to just never go out as some have suggested is really...unfair?

well, not to sound too callus, but at the end of the day, that's really your* problem. Youre making some lifestyle choices that prohibit you from doing the things you enjoy. its one thing if its a health issue, and I at least am generally willing to go further to accommodate you in that case, but if the only thing stopping you from eating something is you, then somewhere youre going to have to sacrifice something, whether it be your social time or your avoidance of whatever food you don't eat.

*"you" in this case being someone who both wants to be social and dislikes the activities that generally go along with that, not necessarily anyone in this thread.

[noparlpf]

If I actually respect somebody (let alone care about them) then I'm going to ask them what they want to get and not just pick the only no-vegetarian-options meat-only barbecue in town without asking them where they want to go. I've never had a problem finding a place to eat out with vegetarians.

If you're more invested in your burger than your friend, then that's kind of your problem.

(And it's not like many places that serve burgers don't have vegetarian options, so you'd kind of have to go out of your way to exclude them.)

[WarKitty]

well, not to sound too callus, but at the end of the day, that's really your* problem. Youre making some lifestyle choices that prohibit you from doing the things you enjoy. its one thing if its a health issue, and I at least am generally willing to go further to accommodate you in that case, but if the only thing stopping you from eating something is you, then somewhere youre going to have to sacrifice something, whether it be your social time or your avoidance of whatever food you don't eat.

*"you" in this case being someone who both wants to be social and dislikes the activities that generally go along with that, not necessarily anyone in this thread.

Complicating this is the fact that some people really do get pretty pushy if someone is going to a social event and not eating said social event's food. In theory it would be fine to just go and not eat food, but it's going to be very hard around most groups to not eat and not have it eventually come out that you're a vegetarian or whatever. And that opens you up to the negative responses again.

[Armaius]

I'm in a similar boat as the OP. I abstain from alcohol, so here's what I do - which I think could be readily adapted to vegetarianism. Basically, I just treat it like no big deal. I don't actively draw attention to it at all. If the topic does come up, I just play it like no big deal and explain that it's a personal lifestyle choice. I don't try to moralize or preach my lifestyle - I view that sort of thing as both obnoxious and rude. Usually, that's as far as the conversation goes because most of the people I've run across have been understanding. However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

If they REALLY continued to push (its never actually gone this far, by the way), I would simply say: "I don't tell you what to put in your body, so why do you get to tell me what to put in mine?" Followed by a mic drop and exit from the conversation. Because at that point it becomes clear that this hypothetical person isn't worth talking to.

[veti]

However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

If they REALLY continued to push (its never actually gone this far, by the way), I would simply say: "I don't tell you what to put in your body, so why do you get to tell me what to put in mine?" Followed by a mic drop and exit from the conversation. Because at that point it becomes clear that this hypothetical person isn't worth talking to.

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

[Keltest]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically mean it can't be questioned, even debated, quite civilly. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

When youre ignoring obvious hints that the other person does not want to talk about this, then yes, it is so bad. "This does not need to be a conversation" goes both ways. If you aren't going to preach to me about something I'm uninterested in listening about, i wont push you to talk about something you don't want to talk about.

[Ruslan]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

Sometimes, a lack of direct answer clearly implies: "if I wanted to give a direct answer, I'd give it by now. Let's just talk about something else". Sometimes it's better for everyone just to be able to understand what the other party is saying. Yes, everything is askable, quizzable, questionable, etc. Doesn't necessarily mean asking, quizzing and questioning will lead to positive results. Sometimes, everyone is just better off by one person deciding not to exercise his unalienable right to ask questions, and just letting go.

[noparlpf]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

Bolded parts should answer your own question. If it has nothing to do with you, by your own admittance, then continuing to press somebody about it when they've already expressed that they don't want to go over it further (for whatever personal reasons, again, not your business what those reasons are) is actually pretty rude.

[Armaius]

Saying "it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't automatically put it beyond questioning or wanting to understand.

What kind of car you drive - that's a lifestyle choice. Toyota, Ford, GM, Volvo... whatever, it's absolutely your choice. Has nothing to do with me. So would you, metaphorically speaking, throw down the mic and walk out if I tried to quiz you about why you made the choice you did? Or would you engage, talking about the pros and cons of each option and why they mattered to you?

Of course you don't have to engage in conversation on the subject. But merely saying "it's a lifestyle choice" - doesn't answer the questions, nor does it make them unanswerable, much less unaskable. If I press you on the subject, it's not because I'm being aggressive or rude or trying to persuade you you're wrong: it's because I'm curious about you, to know why you made the choice you did. Is that so bad?

That depends on how your questioning is worded and the tone you take with me. If you're being aggressive/hostile about it, then yes - you'll get the above answer I mentioned and I will walk off. If you're acting legitimately curious/trying to understand me better, then we'll have a better time and I'll be pleased to elaborate more. Social cues are key.

But, as I said. I don't consider it that big of a deal and, at the end of the day, its my choice. I don't have to justify my decisions to anyone. If you're okay with it - great. If not - I don't care. It doesn't impact you at all.

[Knaight]

Complicating this is the fact that some people really do get pretty pushy if someone is going to a social event and not eating said social event's food. In theory it would be fine to just go and not eat food, but it's going to be very hard around most groups to not eat and not have it eventually come out that you're a vegetarian or whatever. And that opens you up to the negative responses again.

I'm in a similar boat as the OP. I abstain from alcohol, so here's what I do - which I think could be readily adapted to vegetarianism. Basically, I just treat it like no big deal. I don't actively draw attention to it at all. If the topic does come up, I just play it like no big deal and explain that it's a personal lifestyle choice. I don't try to moralize or preach my lifestyle - I view that sort of thing as both obnoxious and rude. Usually, that's as far as the conversation goes because most of the people I've run across have been understanding. However, if they did continue pushing me on it, I would explain that its just that - a lifestyle choice. I would view them as adults capable of making their own decisions - whether they drink (or not) or whether they eat meat (or not) has literally nothing to do with me at all and is none of my concern.

I was thinking of making this same comparison. I do drink, and while it's not heavy drinking by any stretch of the imagination it's not minimal either. I also don't push drinking on people - but I've seen it done and had to help push back more than once. The same sort of pre-emptive defensiveness exists in a lot of drinkers as does in a lot of omnivores, and it's obnoxious.

[Ceaon]

Lots of interesting responses.

We've discussed how to be a good guest and a good host, both as a someone with and someone without an uncommon diet.
We've also discussed whether making fun of someone is okay if they are different or have made uncommon lifestyle choices, and whether it is okay to make fun of someone if they don't like it. And we've discussed ways for me to respond to both sollicited and unsollucited responses to my diet.

Responses have been quite varied and thus helpful to me. I am glad to see many people say "I couldn't care less about your diet", and also people who say they would be interested in my reasoning, both responses I have no problem dealing with. Yet I've also seen some people who do, in fact, think that this small part of me, my diet, would prevent me from sharing a meal with them, either in their house or in a restaurant. I have also seen someone being more... let's call it assertive, when explaining and defending their choice of diet. And someone else who wondered whether NOT trying to convince others of your ideals might be hypocritical.

All in all, I think I have a lot to think about. I think my biggest hurdle is identifying how the person/group I am currently dealing with will react and changing my response to one that works for who I am addressing. I am, I would say, someone with an uncommon lifestyle choice who still want to socialize, and not just with others who've made the same choice.

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

[Socratov]

If I might add my 2 cp,

First I need to confess, I am leaning carnivorous, so take my points with grains of salt as you see fit. Various of my preferences have been expressed in this thread so I will not regugitate them and instead I will focus on some thoughts I had while reading this thread.

With that out of the way, what we are stumbling around here is a fascinating piece of group behaviour which still fascinates scientists. You see, for all our technologial advances and relatively huge brains we are still, for all intents and purposes animals. that means we have a weird sense of how one should behave. This sense probes us to, intending to maintain group cohesion, reject those who don't comply with group behaviour. And we are not the only species of animal who does this (remember the famous reserch about monkeys, the ladder and fruit on top of it?), but the species of animal who have created the most evidence of this effect.

Nowe I find this effect curious because ultimately, like genetic diversion, behavioral diversion should strenghten one's survival chances. If nobody does new things innovation and advancement should stop entirely. Yet we ostracize those who do different things.

Now, I am not a scientist, let alone a behavioral/neurophychology/biology scientist, but I do feel confident (or cheeky) enough to try a hypothesis: we judge behavior in its possible effect and upon that conclusion we reward or punish said behaviour. Rewarding will be done through praise the the awarding of status and by creating peer pressure within the group to perform similar behaviour, punishing of behaviour will be enacted by 'othering'. To strengthen intergroup bonds we treat others as less worthy, by applying the stamp of 'other' a group creates distance between the group and the 'othered' person(s). Convergent behaviour within the group will be improving group cohesion and thus rewarded, divergent behavior within the group will weaken group cohesion and will thus be punished.

So, here you find yourself enacting counter-group behaviour (i.e. self-imposing a dietary restriction that the group does not see as beneficial to group cohesion) and thus get punished for your behaviour (judgmental challenges of your motives of enacting your behaviour, resentment of your behaviour, and so on). The best part of this is the fact that this happens not consciously but instinctively. I don't think that your friends would heckly you with malice and intent, but rather as an instinctive reflex. (please note that I am not saying that this makes it good behaviour, just predictable).

Now as I see it you have 3 choices:

1. correct your behaviour to match that of the group again
2. abandon your current group and find (or form) a new group that matches your newly changed behaviour
3. persevere in your current behaviour and stay with your current group

1's consequences will be you being less able to diminish your ecological footprint and relenting to peer pressure. This will cost you your maslov self-expression points.
2's consequences will be losing social contact for a certain period of time (or indefinitely), not exactly fun if youcan't very quickly find replacements. You might get lonely
3's consequences will be enduring the insticitve heckling, though dependingon the group this might diminish over time and common ground may be established. Though this may take a lot of time and effort and possibly never happen. That is a risk you will have to gauge yourself.

Btw, as a Dutchie myself I can tell you that at least one social thing will be pared to you: nearly any place that serves meat or midnight snack (McD's, pizza, Shoarma/Kebab/Kapsalon) will serve something vegetarian as well. Even if it's only the fries: enacting in the same social behaviour as your peers, albeit according to your own norms, will make option 3 a lot easier. Good luck!

[Flickerdart]

remember the famous reserch about monkeys, the ladder and fruit on top of it?

Never happened.

[Vinyadan]

Never happened.

I like how there is an anthropology professor quoted in that page that has worked with hundreds of monkeys. I would have expected him to earn the title of monkeologist.

[Socratov]

Never happened.

well, that'll teach me to beleive things I read on the internet...

I like how there is an anthropology professor quoted in that page that has worked with hundreds of monkeys. I would have expected him to earn the title of monkeologist.

Well, just make sure you don't have any apes between them ro they might get offended.

on a more serious note, would that not make a Simianologist? (simains being ape and ape related species IIRC)

[Liquor Box]

You are right. A better term would be verbal abuse.

Look, I disagree with you. You are defending your "right" to make others feel bad despite them telling you to stop, and that you feel you "give them a pass", as if you are the bigger person, when you do listen... it just baffles me. But I do not want to be drawn into an argument, so I will apologize that I am too sensitive for your taste, and hope that we can agree to move on.

I don't think I said any such thing.

I very clearly said from the outset that I think people have the right to be vegetarians, what you eat (like most things) is a matter of personal choice.

I do think that people who choose to be vegetarians are likely to be subject to ordinary banter in the same way as a person who wears an unusual shirt might be - that's just life, and as I have said I think people joking with each other in a friendly way is a good thing. I have also said that if a person were to tell me that he is insecure about a particular thing (like vegetarianism) and is sensitive to teasing about it, that I would probably refrain from taking the piss on that point.

[Liquor Box]

From that very same Wikipedia article:


Sounds like persistently belittling, demeaning and insulting your veggo "friends" to me.

Oh look, someone wrote an article about exactly this.

Also, as I already alluded to, tying a person's masculinity to their diet in a derogatory and sexist manner is its own bundle of douchey.

At best, this is all being an [buttface]. That's not really a great best-case scenario.

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:

t is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.

What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

[Spojaz]

I'm a little late to this party, but I think the reason there is friction between vegetarians and the rest of us is because you end up representing a way we could be better but aren't. Just like with gym rats, conspicuous givers, those don't watch TV, are constantly posting travel pictures to facebook, or cook all of their own meals, being around a person who has improved themselves in one of the ways we could do but haven't is grating. Even if you don't intend to make us feel inferior, it's still there. Nobody is perfect, and most of the time we don't want to change or be reminded that change is possible.

[Liquor Box]

Lol @ eating meat to every meal and demanding that your host serves you meat. Not eating something and asking that specific thing to be left out of your food is abysmally different from demanding a specific ingredient in every meal.

I don't think there's really a meaningful difference (certainly not "abysmally different") at all here. Demanding meat is left out of every meal is essentially demanding that every meal is vegetarian (the only other option is fruit and I don't know that there are many fruit dishes considered a full meal). Admittedly I am assuming that the vegetarians also do not eat fish, and that may not be the case.

I don't really think you can demand your host include meat in your meals, any more than you can demand he include vegetables in your meal. As others have said hopefully the two of you know one another well enough to cater for each others food tastes, and if those are so non-compatible maybe you should not cook for one another.

[Liquor Box]

It seems that in a few posts, the argument that one could be forced to eat animal products for economic reasons has come up. Since when is meat or animal products cheaper than vegetables?
Could it be that when you are thinking about a vegan diet you are thinking about soy milk and those super expensive meat surrogates? Both of which are hardly necessary.
In fact the main reason for why I adopted a vegan diet when at home is that it is far cheaper to buy vegetables and rice than meat.

In terms of calories I expect you are right. But I understand (I'm not actually an expert) that chicken is close to the cheapest source of protein there is. During the global financial crisis in 2009 the price of chicken rose dramatically due to increased demand for chickens instead of more expensive protein sources.

[noparlpf]

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:


What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

I figure that if somebody says they don't like your "teasing" and you continue it, that counts as hostile intent (and arguably demonstration of power, even if it's only a little power; it shows that they can't stop you from doing it). Why would you intentionally do something somebody has told you they dislike if not out of hostile intent?

"Mild teasing" is something both parties agree to. If one party feels that it's crossed the line from friendly ribbing to something they don't like, the party who continues to tease doesn't get to decide it's not actually bullying.

[Razade]

You are still well wide of the mark here and the very passage you quoted from wikipedia demonstrates that.

It does say that bullying can be verbal (I think we all know that), but that doesn't mean any teasing comment in bullying. The part of the passage you quoted that actually sets out what bullying is, is this:


What I am talking about is a bit of mild teasing. It does not have hostile intent, it does not have an imbalance of power, and it may or may not be repeated over time.

Perhaps read what you are quoting before posting it?

You don't understand Box. Any kind of teasing is bullying to a section of people. Mean words are mean words.

[Liquor Box]

I figure that if somebody says they don't like your "teasing" and you continue it, that counts as hostile intent (and arguably demonstration of power, even if it's only a little power; it shows that they can't stop you from doing it). Why would you intentionally do something somebody has told you they dislike if not out of hostile intent?

"Mild teasing" is something both parties agree to. If one party feels that it's crossed the line from friendly ribbing to something they don't like, the party who continues to tease doesn't get to decide it's not actually bullying.

In the very post preceding the one you quoted I said this(which was a repetition of having said the same many times earlier):

"I have also said that if a person were to tell me that he is insecure about a particular thing (like vegetarianism) and is sensitive to teasing about it, that I would probably refrain [teasing] on that point."

Despite this, if a person did continue to tease a vegetarian (in a mild way) after the vegetarian saying the did not like it I still don't think this would amount to bullying, although it may be moderately unkind.

To answer your question about why someone would do something that another person doesn't like, I will endeavour to use this very thread as an example. People in this thread have said that they do not like others talking about vegetarianism (I think because they feel that vegetarianism is being shoved down their throat from an unfounded (in their view) moral standpoint). Yet people continue to discuss vegetarianism positively despite others indicating they dislike this. They do this because they want to discuss their views on vegetarianism and they do not think that someone (whose viewpoint they disagree with) saying "I don't like it" if sufficient to override their right and desire to continue discussing the topic. Likewise, if people were making negative comments about vegetarianism in a different setting they may not thing that their right and desire to do so should be overridden by one person saying "I agree with vegetarianism (and am one) so I don't like this discussion implying that vegetarians have negative characteristics".

I agree with you that there is a point at which negative (or teasing) comments about vegetarianism can become bullying. It's difficult to put your finger on precisely where that line is drawn though, and context (particularly the usual relationship between the two - I'm imagining friends who often wind each other up about quirks) is important.

[Vinyadan]

well, that'll teach me to beleive things I read on the internet...


Well, just make sure you don't have any apes between them ro they might get offended.

on a more serious note, would that not make a Simianologist? (simains being ape and ape related species IIRC)

I think yes, but simia is Latin, I don't know if it's the same word in Greek (usually you use Greek words with the -logy suffix because it's a Greek suffix). I guess it would be simiologist, Greek compunds often have a -o- linking pieces together (anthrop-o-logist, music-o-logist, herpet-o-logist, and so on.) Or pithekologist, pithekos is the Greek word for monkey. Australopithecus means southern ape.

[McBish]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.

[Crow]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.

I pretty much agree here. It is actually a hard case to make that human agriculture hasn't led to the extinction of more species than any other human cause. Not that ranching is much better in that respect.

As far as being ethical, I am in the position where I can buy my meat from local sellers who treat the animals in a humane and ethical manner. I can go out to their location and see the conditions that the animals live in. We buy meat from cows that range free on large stretches of land and graze naturally. Same with the other meats we purchase as well. We always try to buy from sources who provided the best possible life for the animals we eat.

It is hard for me to see how being a vegetarian for "ethical reasons" is in any way superior to eating animals who have been treated and raised in ethical and sustainable ways.

[Ruslan]

Farming can be ethical or unethical. The automatic assumption that vegetables are more ethical then meat seems small minded. I would say that meat from hunting deer in areas where that hunting is sustaniable, is more ethical then almond milk made from almonds farmed by a big corporation in California. Especially if that meat isn't traveling half way around the world to be consumed. If we are talking about loss of life I bet more bugs are killed in the corn fields of WI yearly then cattle killed worldwide for any reason. And lets not get started on rabbits and other burrowing animals.

So when someone tells me they are vegetarian for ethical reasons I wonder how much work they put in to being ethical about their food choices. I don't call people out on it because I am pretty lazy about my ethical choices when it comes to food. And I know it is perfectly possible to make ethical choices either way.

This is a red herring argument. Very few people who eat meat actually get their daily meat intake from deer, hunted in areas where that hunting is sustainable. And when I say very few, I actually mean none.