Let's talk about food

schrafinator:Hello again. Sorry it took a while to reply, but as with many of you out there...I was away for the weekend. I went up to Beaver Island with my wife, and with the exception of one incident, had a very enjoyable 4 days. Unfortunately, now that my wife is once again on the Island and I am home, my "dinners" will be sorely lacking in taste and nutritional value. yes, indeed, we went home with a bottle of Trianna. Price had nothing to do with it (for those of you reading this...it was the least expensive of the four she had us taste), but rather it being a more "mild" oil, we figured it'd be the "best all around" oil to have if all we could have was one. Nanc (my wife) really enjoyed the "grassy" one (Pasolive?) and next pay day...I might order it, if that's possible.As for the "incident" I mentioned above...I almost want to start a new thread to "discuss" similar events...but I think it would serve no purpose other than to let people "vent" their anger. You see, our lovely, friendly, fun-loving, great pooch was attack by a pit-bull (and another pit-bull, boxer mix...two fucking useless piece of shit dogs ganging up on our Brittany) while we were on a walk up on Beaver. I'm getting pissed just writing about it now. Who fucking wants a pit-bull? Anyway, that's a discussion for another thread, which as I hope everyone would agree, would only serve as a thread for people to scream about how utterly fucking useless pit-bulls (and related dogs) are...so why bother? Our dog was, out of serendipity, not severely injured (at least physically), I might add.

We can start another thread if you are still around, but I disagree about your take on pit bulls.Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

My husband and I are splitting a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm share with a friend this year.We pay a flat fee and get 20 weeks of beautiful, extremely fresh organic produce. We are getting lots of lettuces and greens like arugula, tatsoi and the most beautiful spinach, and also garlic shoots, parsnips, spring onions, and tiny little new fingerling potatoes. You just cannot believe how good everything tastes when it is this carefully grown and this fresh!while the initial investment is a good chunk of cash, we are saving grocery money in the long term as well as gas money to get to the store.This is a great alternative to the blandness and wastefulness of the megamart system and goes a long way to preserving the land and supporting the preservation of green spaces and the production of local food in your area. It also is great to start eating more seasonally and to be able to speak directly with the people who actually produce the food that you eat.I strongly encourage everyone to consider participating in a CSA program near you. Here is a informational website to get you started: community supported agricultureThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-20-2005 10:39 AM

That's pretty cool Schraf.
I like the concept.
As someone directly involved with agricultural research I have always been bothered by the 'bigger is better' approach to agriculture as a business. It's all driven by economics - and economics of production - nothing that really favors the consumer. Depending more on local production to the extent possible makes much better environmental sense. We waste literally millions of barrels of oil every year just moving food around, no to mention large-scale agriculture reducing the quality of food for sake of reducing costs of production. I just wish CSA were a feasible option for more people. We are really frustrated with the quality of food available in our local grocery stores, but we don't have any alternatives and most people don't seem to know the difference. Unless more consumers become educated, it's not going to change.

I'm glad you brought that up. I grew up in the mid-atlantic states before the Interstate Highway System and MegaFarm. Foods had a season, out of season meant canned. Today though, with ubiquitous transportation, I can have grapes and cherries everyday of the year. In fact I can have anything, anytime ... except flavor.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey, here's many of the farmer's markets in Kansas.There's quite a few. Kansas farmer's markets

I think your tone was unfortunate in your reply, but at least it (and holmes patting you on the back for trouncing arguments I hadn't even made) annoyed me enough to reply: Great. Neither do I.However, it does at least seem that you are judgemental against vegetarians. That is my gut response at least when you (and others) counter my choice of lifestyle with assertion and evidence that eating meat is "normal". Sounds a lot like the countless arguments that seek to demonstrate that heterosexuality is "normal" as a way to denigrate homosexuality. I didn't question the morality of eating meat. You are arguing with yourself there.I questioned the idea that 'X'-feels-better-than-'Y' is sufficient reason to choose 'X'. It obviously isn't in our minds, since you would apparently not eat a golden retriever steak if it tasted better than a beef steak. We seem to agree on that point. Again you are arguing with yourself here. My fake-meat dishes have, on occasion, fooled the meaties. But that isn't the point.The point, as you outline, is largely nurture. It is what one is trained and accustomed to in their diet. Soy tastes better to me than flesh after eight years of avoiding flesh and enjoying soy.Many people would prefer a Big Mac and Coke to a well-seasoned filet mignon (from a sustainably-raised, humanely-raised animal) with a nice glass of red wine. Does that make one of those choices better than the other? No, not simply at the "feels good" level. I applaud you for that. And thanks for answering my other questions regarding your choices. This is that pesky "meat-eating-is-normal" argument that I think is as pointless as all of the other "X-is-normal" arguments. Humans do a hell of a lot of things that aren't "normal" in regards to biology and ecology, and arguments akin to yours here have been used for and against all sorts of moral issues.In any case, you are arguing with yourself again. I agree that humans are omnivores in a biological sense. I also know that as a human I can make moral decisions (as do you) regarding my diet, and choose how I deal with that biology.The very fact that you used cultural arguments above to justify dietary choices contradicts the biological arguments you make here. You obviously follow culture over biology in making dietary choices. After all, you "are capable of consuming and deriving nutrition from animals" raised in non-humane, non-sustainable manner, yet you go to great lengths to avoid that source of nutrition.If the other great apes are any indication, not only are we omnivores, we should be subsisting on a diet mainly of fruit and insects, with vegetables and raw monkey flesh to supplement. Does that biology match your dietary choices? Or do you cook your meat (monkey or otherwise), which vastly increases the carcinogen content? Not in any way a rebuttal to my carcinogen concern. Which is better - "no carcinogens", or "carcinogens in moderation"? You've chosen "carcinogens in moderation" for your diet.And meat is not "perfectly healthful", at least not according to numerous presentations at the 2003 American Association of Cancer Research annual meeting's (the largest annual meeting of cancer researchers in the world) Nutrition, Diet, and Cancer symposium. Speaker after speaker, all top researchers in the field, had one message in common - the single most important dietary change that one can enact to reduce their cancer risk (across all cancer types) is to eradicate flesh from their diet. All forms of flesh, completely. Even eating flesh once a week drastically increases your lifetime cancer risk. (I have to say that I was amazed at the consensus and complete lack of detraction among the several hundred researchers in attendance - quite unusual for a claim that counters basic precepts of our culture).In any case, carcinogens in moderation are still carcinogens.An interesting factoid: Only two species in the world regularly get prostate cancer. Humans and dogs. Humans that eat cooked red meat, and dogs that live with humans and eat the scraps of that cooked meat. Not at all, and calling it silly isn't a constructive reply.Which is better - "no carcinogens" or "carcinogens in moderation"? Quite frankly I find this statement ridiculously ignorant - at least in regards to vegetarianism as a choice. It is a sign that we live in a great overabundance of resources that the average American has the luxury of eating meat at every meal. What portion of the world's population has that luxury?Meat-based nutrition requires far more energy/time/land/resources to produce than vegetable-based nutrition; the standard number I've heard is that meat is 5% efficient. That is, you could feed 20 people a vegetarian diet with the same amount of resources that would only feed one person on a meat-based diet (after passing all of those resources through the inefficient "meat-filter").You drive an SUV (metaphorically). I safely ride my bicycle to work on a well-marked, well-maintained bicycle lane (metaphorically). Both of these things are made possible by overabundance of resources in our country/community. To call my mode of bike-riding "an incredible luxury" may be true, but it is quite different from your luxury of driving an SUV every day. This is especially the case when countless more people in the world are riding bicycles than cars by necessity, since they don't have access to the resources required for any kind of car (or an infrastructure that allows the car to be used).Do you not realize that huge portions of the world's population are essentially vegetarian by necessity? When my wife traveled across Southern Mexico doing social work, that was the case for just about everyone she met - corn, beans, sometimes an egg or a bit of cheese - every day. People in the lower class had that meal once a day, people in the middle class had it twice a day, with perhaps the luxury of a piece of fruit once a week. (The upper class was about 1% of the population and ate meat.) Nearly everyone only ate meat a few times a year, generally as part of community celebrations.Similar situations exist throughout the world.We do live in a great overabundance (perhaps overindulgence is better) of food. However, I have made a choice to minimize my indulgence in this overabundance. Many people are vegetarians for this reason specifically. It wasn't a judgemental question. Why did you think it was? Why did you find it necessary to point the finger at something from my personal life I mentioned in a thread a year ago? I find your response just so... ridiculous. I never claimed eating meat for pleasure was somehow morally wrong, so your response is completely off-base.To recap: You said there were few "cons" to eating meat. I asked what the "pros" were, other than "it feels good". Your apparent answer: I think this is why I found your previous line ridiculous. It doesn't seem that you have any other "pros"... other than "it feels good". And despite your railings and protests, I'm not passing judgement on you for that reasoning and choice. For that, I applaud you.However, I am disheartened, that you (someone who appears to spend a heck of a lot more time than I do making moral choices about their diet) are giving the standard reactionary response to any mention of vegetarianism.Why is that? People always bitch about "preachy vegetarians", yet usually the mere realization that I am a vegetarian throws people into argumentative fits, that eating meat is normal, and that vegetarianism is not a healthy choice. Usually at the end of their fit they tell me how much they can't stand preachy vegetarians like me. In a couple of cases I've been called a preachy vegetarian when I haven't said a word.What is this reaction to vegetarians? Guilt? Xenophobia?

Holmes - I felt compelled to respond to your message (even two+ months later), especially since it was so off-base and involved calling me a hypocrite. I'm glad you enjoyed schraf's response to my post; however her response didn't accurately reflect what she was replying to. I was posing questions to her to get to her cultural, logistical, medical thoughts on meat consumption. ("Almost vegetarians" like schraf often have interesting views on such subjects.)She though I was sitting in judgement. I was not. (Unless you can point out to me where I said it was morally wrong to consume flesh, or that humans are herbivores, or any of the other details she argued against that I never brought up). Please point out to me where I've been hypocritical, or retract the statement. I've already replied to schraf above that part of this idea is flawed - the frequency which westerners consume meat is a testament to overabundance, not vegetarianism. A vegetarian diet uses far less resources that a meat diet; and thus much of the world's population is vegetarian by necessary.In any case, simply because I choose to be vegetarian does not mean that I am "putting on airs,... a sort of mysanthropy and delusion" (it seems you are passing judgement on moral eaters, by the way - moreso on schraf who carefully evaluates her food choices as "humane" and "inhumane").It is unfortunate that vegetarianism is so routinely and predictably attacked. Simply the fact that I am a vegetarian causes everyone to believe that I am judgemental of meat-eaters. The predicament of the vegetarian is akin to living in society where the realization that someone is a heterosexual is accompanied by the immediate assumption that said person is a rabid homophobe.I don't judge meat-eaters. In fact, if you read through the first few pages of this thread, it rather seems that it is the vegetarian that is being judged by the meat-eaters. I've chosen to not eat flesh, for a variety of reasons (one of which is that it nauseates me). Why is that wrong? Why am I a hypocrite for enjoying anal sex but not fried chicken? (By the way, I've been told many times that vegetarians do, indeed, taste better.)
_________________________________________By the way, good luck on your personal battles with diet and digestion - I've got multiple close family members with both psychological and pathological issues with food - one of the reasons I was involved with gastrointestinal research for several years... I'm not sure what your situation is, and don't want to seem as if I'm giving medical advice; but you may want to think about a regimen of serial elimination diets. There are some good books that outline week-by-week diet plans that exclude certain dietary components in series - some people facing surgery have avoided it by simple dietary changes (and revealed the underlying problem rather than just attempting to repair the symptoms). My wife was someone who underwent surgery (not to mention years of extreme pain before and after the surgery) before we realized that simply cutting dairy out of her diet completely eliminated the problem.In any case, best of luck.

quote:

---

I think your tone was unfortunate in your reply, but at least it (and holmes patting you on the back for trouncing arguments I hadn't even made) annoyed me enough to reply

---

Well, I think that you deserved any "tone" that may have been in my response because you came at me with a rather over the top attack, what with the judgemental comments about "golden retriever" steaks and so on.

quote:

---

However, it does at least seem that you are judgemental against vegetarians.

---

Not as a general rule. I really don't care if people eat meat or not. I do tend to get a bit testy with self rightous vegetarians who presume to lecure me about my personal food choices with the assumption that I haven't given serious thought to them.Please understand that you did come across that way.

quote:

---

That is my gut response at least when you (and others) counter my choice of lifestyle with assertion and evidence that eating meat is "normal".

---

quote:

---

Sounds a lot like the countless arguments that seek to demonstrate that heterosexuality is "normal" as a way to denigrate homosexuality.

---

Can we or can we not derive nutrition from eating meat?Is the important nutrient vitamin B12 easier to get in animal products or plant products?Oh, and by the way, I don't think you should eat meat if you don't want to, and I don't ever remember implying you that you should. Eat what you feel comfortable eating.So will I.

quote:

---

I didn't question the morality of eating meat. You are arguing with yourself there.

---

Oh, come on.Are you telling me that you weren't trying to say, "Don't you know that eating beef is the equivalent of eating your beloved pet dog, Sparky?"

quote:

---

I questioned the idea that 'X'-feels-better-than-'Y' is sufficient reason to choose 'X'. It obviously isn't in our minds, since you would apparently not eat a golden retriever steak if it tasted better than a beef steak. We seem to agree on that point. Again you are arguing with yourself here.

---

See, I'm not buyin' it.You were pretty clearly trying to make me feel bad about eating meat.Otherwise you might have chosen something like fish eyeballs that doesn't have a "cute, beloved pet" feeling draped over it.

quote:

---

My fake-meat dishes have, on occasion, fooled the meaties. But that isn't the point.

---

And, like I said, those being fooled most likely are accustomed to flavorless, mass produced meat.

quote:

---

The point, as you outline, is largely nurture. It is what one is trained and accustomed to in their diet. Soy tastes better to me than flesh after eight years of avoiding flesh and enjoying soy.

---

Great, enjoy it.

quote:

---

Many people would prefer a Big Mac and Coke to a well-seasoned filet mignon (from a sustainably-raised, humanely-raised animal) with a nice glass of red wine. Does that make one of those choices better than the other? No, not simply at the "feels good" level.

---

Agreed.But I never said that gustatory pleasure was 100% about the tastebuds for me. I also explained that how the animals I eat are raised is important to me.

quote:

---

I applaud you for that. And thanks for answering my other questions regarding your choices.

---

Thank you, and you're welcome.

quote:

---

In any case, you are arguing with yourself again. I agree that humans are omnivores in a biological sense. I also know that as a human I can make moral decisions (as do you) regarding my diet, and choose how I deal with that biology.

---

That's fine.

quote:

---

The very fact that you used cultural arguments above to justify dietary choices contradicts the biological arguments you make here. You obviously follow culture over biology in making dietary choices.

---

So does everyone. In fact, everyone makes various "culture over biology" (and vice versa) choices about all sorts of things every day.

quote:

---

If the other great apes are any indication, not only are we omnivores, we should be subsisting on a diet mainly of fruit and insects, with vegetables and raw monkey flesh to supplement. Does that biology match your dietary choices? Or do you cook your meat (monkey or otherwise), which vastly increases the carcinogen content?

---

Do you have a great fear of cancer or something?I think you have mentioned "carcinogens" at least 4 times in as many messages in this thread.Living in a city greatly increases onces chances of getting cancer, as does spending time in the sun. Does that mean I should move to a basement apartment in Greenland? Yep, you are scared of getting cancer.I think that being constantly terrified of getting sick sends more cancer-causing stress hormones through your body than any damage to my body done by my eating a bit of meat every now and then.I believe that there can be a balance between "living to eat" and "eating to live".Constantly worrying about the cancer risk of each bite of food I put in my mouth would be just about the worst way to eat that I can imagine.Tell me, do you have any studies which show significantly lower cancer rates among vegetarians compared to people who follow a mediterranean diet?Have you ever heard of something called the "French Paradox?"

quote:

---

And meat is not "perfectly healthful", at least not according to numerous presentations at the 2003 American Association of Cancer Research annual meeting's (the largest annual meeting of cancer researchers in the world) Nutrition, Diet, and Cancer symposium. Speaker after speaker, all top researchers in the field, had one message in common - the single most important dietary change that one can enact to reduce their cancer risk (across all cancer types) is to eradicate flesh from their diet. All forms of flesh, completely. Even eating flesh once a week drastically increases your lifetime cancer risk. (I have to say that I was amazed at the consensus and complete lack of detraction among the several hundred researchers in attendance - quite unusual for a claim that counters basic precepts of our culture).

---

...and what did they say in 2004 and 2005?And are there any contradictory studies?What about the Omega-3 fats found in fish that beneficial to our hearts and can reduce the risk for certain cancers?In fact, this is what the ACS says about cooking meat and cancer: linkAlso, too much soy may actually increase cancer risk in certain women because of it's estrogen conent: And they also say:

quote:

---

In any case, carcinogens in moderation are still carcinogens.

---

Right.Do you live underground in the wilderness?

quote:

---

Snip...

​

We do live in a great overabundance (perhaps overindulgence is better) of food. However, I have made a choice to minimize my indulgence in this overabundance. Many people are vegetarians for this reason specifically.

---

You are not telling me anything I didn't learn 20 years ago.I have done the same thing as you, only on a lesser scale.You can feel morally superior if you like. Just save the lecture.

quote:

---

It doesn't seem that you have any other "pros"... other than "it feels good".

---

Vitamin B12, high-quality protein, zinc, a bunch of other nutrients, and in some cases omega-3 fatty acids.

quote:

---

And despite your railings and protests, I'm not passing judgement on you for that reasoning and choice.

---

So, that "golden retriever steaks" comment wasn't judgemental?Please.

quote:

---

However, I am disheartened, that you (someone who appears to spend a heck of a lot more time than I do making moral choices about their diet) are giving the standard reactionary response to any mention of vegetarianism.

---

Hey, you started it.Read message #15 and please explain to me where I was being "reactionary" to your vegetarianism.

quote:

---

Why is that? People always bitch about "preachy vegetarians", yet usually the mere realization that I am a vegetarian throws people into argumentative fits, that eating meat is normal, and that vegetarianism is not a healthy choice.

---

Eating meat is normal for our species, and I wasn't throwing a fit, and at no time did I say that vegetarianism is not healthy.

quote:

---

What is this reaction to vegetarians? Guilt? Xenophobia?

---

Sorry, dude, our perceptions are pretty different regarding where the argumentativeness and preaching began.

Again, ridiculous. I made no "judgemental comments about "golden retriever" steaks" or any thing else. You had commented that meat-tastes-better-than-soy was one of the reasons you enjoyed meat. I simply asked about your "taste-test" in regards to a meat not accepted in Western culture, in order to get to your philosophy on the subject. Honestly. To me dog meat is philosophically equivalent to beef, which is one of the reasons I don't eat beef - I would never eat one of my dogs. It wasn't an "over the top attack." It was a simple question. No, not at all. I write what I mean. If I wanted to be judgemental, I would have been.Besides, if I wanted to attack you with something cute, adorable, and beloved I would have picked on your cats and horses.(And I simply love being called judgemental by someone, who, in the next breath states: "I know what you mean - you don't mean what you wrote, you mean what I have judged you to have meant." Fantastic - I'm a vegetarian so I must be in rabid judgemental attack mode if I ask you a simple question about meat). Nope. Wasn't trying to make you feel bad about eating meat. Have you simply ignored my repeated statements that I respect your choices regarding diet, in order to have something to attack me about? And you wonder why I call you "reactionary"?In any case, I was simply choosing types of meat that are culturally abhorrent in the West - human flesh and pet flesh were the first that came to mind. "Fish eyeballs"? Why the hell would I choose fish eyeballs? Please understand that you chose to interpret my questions as an attack - I asked you what the pros were of eating meat other than taste, and for that you labeled me a "self rightous vegetarians who presume to lecure [you] about [your] personal food choices with the assumption that [you] haven't given serious thought to them." Now I say "please" to you - the very reason I engaged you in discussion was because you were a moral eater who I knew had give serious thought to the subject. And where did I lecture you? Yep. I already said that. Are you reading my posts, or just reacting to what you assume they contain? And again, whether or not we can do something biological has nothing to do with moral/philosophical choices. I can biologically reproduce via rape, but I choose not to. Is it easier to get beef from a McDonald's or a researched, visited, humane/sustainable farm? What does "easy" have to do with anything? You obviously don't take the "easy" route when making your moral decisions about diet. The implication as I took it - that vegetarianism is not normal at the cultural or biological level. Those seemed to be your arguments (at least that meat-eating is "normal"). If that was not what you meant, then I read your intent incorrectly. What the fuck? Judgemental, a bit?If I mention to you that cigarettes contain carcinogens and I therefore do not smoke them, would I be "scared of getting cancer"?Actually, I was a cancer researcher (with a primary focus on gastrointestinal cancers) for over seven years, including dietary studies. I still serve as a consultant for such studies. The fact of the matter is that there is a consistent correlation between meat consumption and cancer (and several other classes of disease, including major killers like heart disease and diabetes).You can trot out all the weak, tentative-medical-advice ACS proclamations you want; reading them actually took me back to the symposium I mentioned. Another consensus among the professionals there was that Westerners would never follow a meat-free diet (and asking them to do so would have essentially no effect on their diet), and so a low-meat diet should be promoted to patients since such would be more efficient at getting people to actually reduce meat consumption. I see that idea reflected in the ACS statement. I never mentioned a veggie diet preventing cancer. I mentioned meat increasing susceptibility to cancer. There is a clear difference. My recollection of this theory is that it doesn't increase susceptibility to initiation of cancer, rather, eating high (3+ servings a day) amounts of soy is associated with accelerated expansion and progression of already existing estrogen-responsive tumors. That is an important distinction. Absolutely. I don't worry about it either.There is a difference between being knowledgeable and being "scared". Maybe if you were not so judgemental you wouldn't call people weak for the basis of decisions in their lives. I don't feel morally superior. If I felt morally superior I would tell you directly.Save the lecture? Should I no longer reply with content? Give me a break - we are on a discussion board to exchange ideas. It was my understanding that you and holmes were making the assertion that vegetarianism is permitted by overabundance. Simply not true - a point that it appears you now agree with since you learned it 20 years ago... All available from non-animal sources, so these aren't unique "pros" to eating meat. (By the way, what exactly is "high-quality protein"? You do realize that the same amino acids are present in animal and non-animal protein? There is no difference in "quality".) Nope. How many times are you going to call me a liar?I wanted to double-check that my question was in fact how I remember it. Here it is: Good, I did not in fact claim nor imply that your pet Sparky was the same as a grilled sirloin. I asked a straightforward question about the taste of flesh vs. cultural perceptions of said flesh. Perhaps you can point out where I "started it". Besides, I was responding to your message #26 (you know, the one where you called me a judgemental hypocrite and felt compelled to bring up my sex life), not your message #15.Why did I bring up "reactionary"? Because you twisted a simple question I asked into a claim of moral superiority, and you now call me a liar when I try to clarify that the question was indeed to be taken in a straightforward manner. To clarify - I wasn't talking about you at the very end of my response, which is why I used the word "people" instead of "you". I was trying to discuss with you the average response I get from meaties when they discover I'm a veggie. Sorry if it seemed like I was pointing the finger at you there... Sorry, babe, but again I was trying to discuss an average response. Perhaps you would rather point fingers and call me a judgemental liar than actually read what I have written and have a decent, open discussion.This is actually one of the reasons I took a break from the forum. Seemingly intelligent people were having extensive, unnecessarily personal, and at times ferocious arguments based on a potential negative implication of a statement, rather than asking for clarification or taking people at their word. It doesn't seem that much has changed.

I'm judgemental about vegetarians, because their food is too damn bland. At least, all the vegetarian/vegan I've ever eaten.What's the deal with that? Seems that bland food is endemic amongst non-meat-eaters. Where's the fire? I ate a "curry" at this natural foods cafe - brilliant fruit smoothies but that's the only thing they do right - and it was like red beans and some zucchini. I couldn't taste a bit of tumeric or coriander or anything. I've tasted more spiciness in hot water.

That's too bad. I've actually had the exact opposite experience - that vegetarian food is a lot more complex and interesting than standard meat and veg fare. Believe me, I regularly eat vegetarian curries that would melt your face.I suggest you try a different source, or cook for yourself; and perhaps tell the restaurant(s) that their vegetarian fare sucks. Or instead of seeking out a crunchy granola shop for your curry, go to your favorite Thai restaurant and order vegetarian. Is simple.Frankly, I find your commentary a bit amusing - obviously you know enough about spices to know that it is not the fact that a meal is vegetarian that makes it bad. After all, if you had a bad run with bland meat, would you be judgemental about meat and meat-eaters? No, I'd guess you would try another source or grab a bottle of hot sauce.

Crash, you need to get to a real Indian restaurant.They will hook you up with the most delicious vegetarian food. I almost always get vegetable dishes at Indian restaurants because most meat is overpowered by the traditional strong spicing. I also love channa, the Indian cheese.But I know what you mean, though. There are many vegetarian restaurants that cater more to people's food politics than to pleasure. They sometimes view food as being "medicinal" in a way. Anything that tastes too good has got to be "bad".Another problem is that they just don't know what they are doing in the kitchen.And what is with the SMELL that all natural food stores have?It's that gross brewer's yeast aroma.Why do they all have that?

You know, you keep saying that you were not meaning to be judgemental or argumentative in this thread, and in fact any perception by others that you were doing so is completely mystifying to you.Well, several of us had the same reaction to you. You essentially still insist that we are all crazy for reacting that way.I'd like to open it up to the participants of this thread to make a call. Moderator judgement is welcome.It is entirely possible that I am missing something and that my delivery wasn't as measured as I intended it to be.What does everyone think? Did I jump down Sasquatch's neck for being a vegetarian or did he try to make me feel defensive and wrong for eating meat?

Well, luckily we have two, and both of them have a chicken tikka masala that knocks my socks off.I think that strict vegetarianism/veganism stems from an unhealthy relationship to food; that it stems from a perverse need to eliminate the sensual experience of eating and tasting and reduce it to a kind of political act of asceticism.I have much, much more respect for (for instance) Schraf's position of meat moderation than ridiculous "can't kill an animal, but no plant is safe" inconsistencies. It's a mental salve, a gastronomical guilt trip, not a rational way to reduce one's ecological footprint.