Let's talk about food

quote:

---

Well, luckily we have two, and both of them have a chicken tikka masala that knocks my socks off.

---

Have you ever had Chicken Mahkni (I don't know how to spell it properly)? That's my alltime favorite Indian dish. A friend from India who grew up a vegetarian but began eating eat after starting to work at Zingerman's (because of the whole sustainably/humanely raised thing we persue for our meat sources) made it for me and I just about died it was so delicious.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now, see, I don't think that's the case with most vegetarians in the world, meaning most of the Buddhists and Hindus.You don't get much more pleasure-seeking and sensual than the cuisine of India.I do think there is a militant segment of the veg/vegan movement in the US which seems to be much more about playing "top this" with how much self-denial and restrictions they puts on their diet. Sort of like the Puritains.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, I think it can be a rational way to reduce one's ecological footprint. Meat production does usually require a lot more resources to produce than most plant foods.Of course, shipping all food all over the world uses more resources than eating localy-produced food in season.(I wonder if sasquatch only buys locally-grown food and if he has given up bananas?)But that's where the moralizing creeps in; "People who are not vegetarians like me don't care about the planet as much as I do and couldn't have possibly seriously considered about all these issues and come to a different valid conclusion than me."This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-23-2005 08:55 AMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-23-2005 10:16 AM

Who else did? Holmes? I'm still not sure that he even read my message you responded to, or he was just patting you on your back for your arguments. I replied to him directly to clarify and he hasn't yet responded.The only other response I recall was Crash's "if we're not supposed to eat animals why are they made out of meat" bumper sticker reply, which I took solely as a cutesy comment. As a side note (and I'm not sure why I didn't bring it up before): I am an animal researcher, and have been steadily for well over a decade. I'm guessing I've been responsible for the death of many more mammals and fishes than you have over the past several years. I kill them with my own hands on a regular basis.Thus, it would be completely illogical and ludicrous for me to try to preach to you and try to make you feel wrong about using animals in another capacity.Get over it. I asked you a simple question, and you took it as judgemental, and thus called me a judgemental hypocrite and brought up my sex life. I call that unneccesary and nonconstructive; "jumping down my neck"? Sure, since you felt it was necessary to get personal.I guess I'm still not sure why you aren't capable of accepting my clarification, and would prefer to repeatedly call me a liar instead.

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant to refer to the unique phenomenon of American middle-class vegetarians and vegans. For most vegetarians in the world, like those you've mentioned, it stems from religion, or from an inaffordability of meat. Yeah, exactly. For most of these people, it's not about being a better person - it's about being a better person than you. Sure. But I have a really hard time believing that, on balance, it's worse for the environment to pick up some locally-raised, locally-butchered hamburgers than it is to have a pack of Boca Burgers shipped up to me from Florida.I'm not saying that you disagree. You know as well as I do that you don't have to eliminate meat to eat healthy and sutainably. Bingo. It's too much "holier than thou" and not enough holy.

I don't think we should eat much of anything myself. Maybe a little bread and cheese. A novelist wrote what I agree with (I'm quoting from memory): "Picking bones from tasteless fish, tearing away at the vile texture of meat, and encompassing the sheer nullity of vegetables is not my idea of a treat."

Hopefully you aren't grouping me into this description. I am a devoted organismal biologist and have killed thousands of vertebrates in the past several years.In fact, I'll be killing some in the next few hours.For a variety of reasons, I choose not to eat meat - guilt is not one of them. For some reason this brings down belittlement and judgement, and the assumption that vegetarianism can only stem from a perverse, non-sensual, political, unhealthy diet.Believe me, vegetarian food can be extremely sensual. From my personal view, things like fat, gristle, skin, and blood are the very antithesis of something positively sensual; and are rather disgusting and disruptive to an enjoyable sensual experience. So I don't eat them - because they interfere with my sensual experience.Besides, it seems you might agree that the seasoning may be the most sensual part of eating. You can add the same seasoning to non-meat as you can to meat.Perhaps you could cut back on your broad stereotypes of vegetarianism - you also don't seem to have considered spiritual or cultural reasons for vegetarianism.The bottom line: You enjoy meat, which is fine; I don't enjoy meat, which should also be fine. There is no reason to call me dysfunctional for my preference.

I preferentially buy locally-grown food, mainly because it tastes better; are more sensual, as Crash might put it.But hell, no, I haven't given up bananas - they are one my favorite foods. I love 'em so much I buy them by the bunch.Good thing I haven't been moralizing or holier-than-thou about food, huh?

Look, if you don't like meat, that's none of my business. As long as you're not all up in my face about me eating a cheeseburger, then no, I'm not lumping you in. Meat, particularly when it is burned or seared, has flavors that cannot be found in any vegetable, nor added to them. No, I have. They're simply not the reason that most people are vegetarians.

Then why propagate the stereotype? The people I know who are indeed strict vegetarians, and have been for a significant portion of their lives, are not preachy at all (then again, I try to avoid assholes). Most preachy vegetarians I've met have been vegetarian for a few months after stumbling upon a PETA website or the liner notes to a Moby album, and are subsisting on bagels and french fries. You're correct.Also, meat, particularly when it is burned or seared, has carcinogens that cannot be found in any vegetable, nor added to them. (The carcinogens are partially responsible for that unique flavor.)Not a guilt-trip; consider it a public service announcement from someone who was a cancer researcher for seven years and can't help himself. I think that spiritual and cultural reasons are the reason most people are voluntary vegetarians - at least at a global level. Even in the US, I would venture a guess that the majority of vegetarians that have been so for more than a year or so are so for spiritual, cultural, or at least philosophical reasons.

Because it's not a stereotype. To the best of my ability to discern, it's a truth. uh-oh. Do they know that french fries are flavored with meat products? Yeah, I know. Vegetables have their own carcinogens, and their own flavors.

Hello: I think I have to agree here. However, as someone who works on a College Campus, I will also add that the vast majority of vegetarians/vegans I know personally are of the ilk more closely related to what Schraf and Crash have mentioned (and even yourself...with the PETA reference).Most of them will not even allow me to cook their vege kaboob on the same grill where I am currently preparing (or have any time in the past) a wonderful venison steak. Something about their food being associated with animal flesh in any way...a bit ridiculous if you ask me.Myself, I have no problem with vegitarians until they do start spouting off about the small impact they have on the ecosystem when compared to what I...a typical meat eater...have. I usually point out that my wife and I rarely (as in almost never) purchase meat from a store and we grow most of our own vegetables, and therefore probably have far less of an impact on the environment than they do. That usually shuts em up.

quote:

---

Also, meat, particularly when it is burned or seared, has carcinogens that cannot be found in any vegetable, nor added to them. (The carcinogens are partially responsible for that unique flavor.)

​

Not a guilt-trip; consider it a public service announcement from someone who was a cancer researcher for seven years and can't help himself.

---

Lots of things increase one's chances for getting cancer, including living in cities and spending time in the sun.Do you live underground, in the wilderness?

quote:

---

uh-oh. Do they know that french fries are flavored with meat products?

---

...and that they hare chock-full of carcinogens, along with bread? link

Actually I don't live in a city, and I spend nearly zero time in the sun. And it has nothing to with fear, it has to do with preference. I've always loved rainy days.Stop being such a fool. Obviously different carcinogens have different potencies and risks.If someone close to you suddenly started smoking 3 packs a day, would you be concerned? Or would you throw up your hands and proclaim, "hell, everything causes cancer, so you might as well smoke 'em up!"Carcinogens from meat are the most potent naturally occuring dietary carcinogens that I am aware of in standard diet (few people chow down on cycad nuts, for example). Meat-based carcinogens really are in a potency class far above other common dietary carcinogens.In any case, I don't see why you think it is appropriate to attack my personal health choices. If I choose for health reasons not to eat burnt meat, drink a pint of whiskey, smoke a box of cigars, and lay out in the noon-day sun everyday, that should be fine - the fact that you think it is appropriate to belittle me for such choices demonstrates that you are the one in inappropriate attack mode.Also, I was thinking about your refusal to believe my clarification on the infamous "golden retriever" question. How would you have responded if you had known I was a meat-eater or animal researcher? If you would have responded differently, you were indeed being prejudicial in your response to me.I'm also waiting for a response to message #197.

When you admit in one breath that the stereotype doesn't hold for everyone in a class of people, and in the next hold that the stereotype is the truth anyway, doesn't that qualify as bigotry?

Did I claim that it applied to everyone? If so, I did not mean to.