Note three things about the statement. It's not said in the first-person about their subjective preference but tout court. They are not speaking about particular veggie burgers, or the veggie burgers they happened to have tried, but about 'veggie burgers'. And their judgement is categorical, not one of degree.
I simply doubt that any such statement is justified. In my experience vegetarianism evokes a great deal of cultural small-mindedness. That is simply an empirical observation. So it was my best guess - given that the statement was so absurd, for the three reasons above - for what was going on here. You'll notice I didn't say that they were small-minded, I said that their statement read as such.
As for the guidelines. I think you should generally assume good faith. But if you see someone express a common prejudice it can also be helpful to call that out. I don't believe in the 'principle of charity' as its stated there. I think you should engage accurately with the arguments that your interlocutor presents, not with an alternative version of it.
I've personally dined with three vegetarians at the meals where they went to try the Impossible Burger for the first time.
It's dangerous to make blanket statements about what all vegetarians think. For example, on the question of why someone has chosen to be a vegetarian, I've heard a long list of different reasons, including: animal welfare, environment, their own health/longevity/energy, not liking the taste of meat, not enjoying the idea of eating an animal's flesh (even if it were ethical), their religion encourages it, and/or it's their default because they were brought up that way and have never tasted meat.
I know it's kind of offtopic, but having gone vegetarian around 2 years ago, it's amazing how many times I heard this argument presented in the way you SHOULD NOT want to replicate meat, you can't call that a burger if it doesn't have meat, I'm not one to get offended but I find it so weird.
To this first one I have 2 points, 1. don't tell me what I want and don't want to do and 2. don't tell me what I want and don't want to do. For the second point, when did you become a burger defender.
Before being vegetarian I've always heard how annoying are vegans trying to convince you bla bla bla, while I know it's circumstantial, I've almost never had that experience, but when I stopped eating meat, I've had dozens of people tell me I'm wrong, doing harm, it's stupid, pointless and that I should reconsider my personal dietary choices.
Someone fed me a veggie burger once, several years ago, without telling me it was a veggie burger. I insisted there was something wrong with it, but they said it was fine. They finally told me it was a veggie burger, and it all made sense.
I would MUCH rather have had a good vegetarian dish that wasn't trying to be something else.
I dated a vegetarian many years ago. It was my first exposure to that lifestyle. She was not against me eating meat even in front of her. She didn't politicize her choice, it was for her health and nothing more. Luckily some fast food places serve salads and so on trips across country we could stop at those places where I could eat a burger and she could eat a salad. Alternately I would go with her to a local Austin burger joint that had a vegetarian night on Wednesdays. I would eat and enjoy a veggie burger with her. We both were willing to meet each other half way.
options like a veggie burger at Burger King give options to people like her. Not every vegetarian is a vegan who makes all meals political. Burger King serving a veggie burger doesn't have to be political. Not every vegetarian surrounds themselves with only other vegetarians.
The is in this particular thread is what "literally the entirety of the natural world" thinks is "food".
The ought is whether we should "think" likewise, or use our purported rationality to consider the implications of that behavior.
The "naturalistic fallacy" — normally used to deride people we like to think, rightly or otherwise, are less rational than ourselves — is, literally, "if it's natural, it must be good/right/proper." The notion under discussion is exactly that.
It's not about whether or not we should all be vegetarians; it's about fallacious "arguments" that we shouldn't.
I find it annoying that a vegetarian can draw the line in the sand and decide what is morally correct for everyone to believe.
Only some vegetarians do that, and it's wrong to imply that it's a defining feature of the demographic. I have vegetarian friends that cook me meat when I visit for dinner, despite me asking not to get special treatment. Other vegetarians just don't like the taste of meat, nothing to do with moral or health attitudes.
Unless the vegetarian is being vocal about the moral issue, it's pretty impolite to bring up the topic apropos of nothing - it's almost always just the questioner trying to score some sort of point.
I'm sorry you got downvoted. It wasn't me, i just posted a facetious (joking, not very well thought-through) comment. I am indeed flexibly vegetarian/freegan, but i'm used to ribbing and being ribbed about it :) (haha geddit ribbing haha)
My comment was made in an understanding spirit, and indeed, i am clearly a proponent of ethical meat if someone is not prepared to go without :). So no, i personally don't think it's silly at all (what is silly, however, is downvoting a random person on the Internet with whom you do not agree on the subject :p).
Peace and kindness and all that, and have a nice day :) Thanks for the informative link! Maybe i'll send it to some of my more staunchly carnivorous friends.
Many folks are vegetarian for ethical reasons, and many of those people still really liked the taste of meat. Letting them experience the tasty without the ethical issues seems win-win.
I reject that as an appropriate or meaningful subset of what it means to be vegetarian, hence my comment. It's basically nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Do you have any supporting view of ethical consequentialist vegetarianism as a sound philosophical position or argument?
I wouldn't take driving advice off someone that hasn't driven for 10 years, even if they passed their test.
I wouldn't take health advice on faith from someone who has a medical degree but never practices medicine.
It's about relative interest. My point wasn't that vegetarians can't know, but that their advice isn't as valuable to me as a recommendation from a current meat eater. The meat eater has less agenda and more recent experience to base their recommendation on.
> If a steak chef says an alternative to steak is X, I'll listen.
Firstly: just because something behaves in a way doesn't mean we should do it too, or not. It's not relevant to the decision making process, as we are not eating them for what they do, but for what they bring to us. We are intelligent creatures capables of decisions based on something else than instincts, and this should be one of them.
Secondly: our technology allow us a variety of diets and ways of life that the animal primitive way of living does not.
This does not mean you should be vegetarian. I am, and I would certainly not enforce it on anybody. But if you take the decision to be veggie or not, it should be from the perspective of a modern, educated human in the context of our science and society.
He recognizes vegetarianism as ethically good while also recognizing that pushing those personal ethics on others often results in a net bad.
That's how I read it at least, and it sounds like a responsible way of handling personal values.
That said, if we do want more people to be vegetarian, then instead of simply making minimal hassle for others, we could also take the opportunity to proactively educate in a caring manner.
If we want a vegetarian world, then instead of scrounging for sides at a dinner party, we could redefine the party to be a collaborative cooking one, or we could try to do more potluck, or we could be more proactive about choosing the meal venue.
Those options take extra effort and aren't even possible a lot of the time, so I feel like OP's non-aggressive stance is a really respectable default.
I'm not a vegetarian, but if I was one, I would hope to have the good taste not to pretend I am eating meat when I am not.
There's a lot to be said for food that's "true to itself", but burgers are really good, perhaps especially to people who have grown up enjoying them and like to continue doing so. That doesn't seem in bad taste to me.
India stands out as a country with amazing regional vegetarian cuisines that celebrate their ingredients and don't pretend to be something they are not. In the United States, vegetarians eat fake meat.
Pretty baseless assertion. In my experience, most of them don't eat much of it but some like it sometimes.
I simply doubt that any such statement is justified. In my experience vegetarianism evokes a great deal of cultural small-mindedness. That is simply an empirical observation. So it was my best guess - given that the statement was so absurd, for the three reasons above - for what was going on here. You'll notice I didn't say that they were small-minded, I said that their statement read as such.
As for the guidelines. I think you should generally assume good faith. But if you see someone express a common prejudice it can also be helpful to call that out. I don't believe in the 'principle of charity' as its stated there. I think you should engage accurately with the arguments that your interlocutor presents, not with an alternative version of it.
reply