http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble sticking
to her vegetarian regimen.

advertisement

The secret to her success? Eating meat.

"Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough or
good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."

Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement and
the industry that feeds it.

'I really like sausage'
These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003 by
the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than by a
growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating more
vegetarian foods.

"There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that nobody
ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I really
like sausage," Pugh said.

In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded, with
items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream groceries
and fast food restaurants.

But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry or
seafood.

Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in meat
and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.

"This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us," he
said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."

Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly 30
percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
vegetarian meals.

Room for flexibility
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the nation'
s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.

"Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not, cutting
back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they know
they should do," she said.

Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective. The
former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if they
didn't.

Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and for
many people a need - for flexibility.

"To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy chicken,
or a grass-fed cow."

Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder, Colo.-based
chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority of
shoppers aren't vegetarians.

Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers are
concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic products,
including meats.

Publishers take notice
Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.

Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine with
a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
exclude even dairy and honey.

Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
editorial director.

"There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also tell
from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian menu
in their current diets."

A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times, considered
the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once mostly
vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
appeal.

Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said the
changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.

Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the flexitarian
trend a good thing.

Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism focusing
more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.

"From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut back
on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two people
cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
vegetarian."

man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the circumstances
under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
healthily.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/
>
> CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
sticking
> to her vegetarian regimen.
>
> advertisement
>
> The secret to her success? Eating meat.
>
> "Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough or
> good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
> really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."
>
> Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
> adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement and
> the industry that feeds it.
>
> 'I really like sausage'
> These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003 by
> the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than by
a
> growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
more
> vegetarian foods.
>
> "There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
nobody
> ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
really
> like sausage," Pugh said.
>
> In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
with
> items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
groceries
> and fast food restaurants.
>
> But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
> committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
> U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry or
> seafood.
>
> Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
> Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in meat
> and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.
>
> "This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us," he
> said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
> because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."
>
> Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly 30
> percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
> vegetarian meals.
>
> Room for flexibility
> Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
> Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
nation'
> s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.
>
> "Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
cutting
> back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
know
> they should do," she said.
>
> Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
> eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective.
The
> former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
they
> didn't.
>
> Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and
for
> many people a need - for flexibility.
>
> "To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
> protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
> great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
chicken,
> or a grass-fed cow."
>
> Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
Colo.-based
> chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority of
> shoppers aren't vegetarians.
>
> Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers are
> concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic products,
> including meats.
>
> Publishers take notice
> Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
> part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
> risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.
>
> Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine
with
> a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
> exclude even dairy and honey.
>
> Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
> editorial director.
>
> "There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
tell
> from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
> vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian
menu
> in their current diets."
>
> A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times, considered
> the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
mostly
> vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
> appeal.
>
> Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said
the
> changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
> 300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.
>
> Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the flexitarian
> trend a good thing.
>
> Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
focusing
> more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.
>
> "From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
back
> on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two people
> cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
> vegetarian."
>
>

that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian lifestyle-give up
this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
Michael
"katie" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
> having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
> dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
> flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the circumstances
> under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way
some
> of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
> that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
> the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> healthily.
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/
> >
> > CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
> sticking
> > to her vegetarian regimen.
> >
> > advertisement
> >
> > The secret to her success? Eating meat.
> >
> > "Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict enough
or
> > good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently. "I
> > really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."
> >
> > Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
> > adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement
and
> > the industry that feeds it.
> >
> > 'I really like sausage'
> > These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003
by
> > the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights than
by
> a
> > growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
> more
> > vegetarian foods.
> >
> > "There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
> nobody
> > ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
> really
> > like sausage," Pugh said.
> >
> > In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
> with
> > items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
> groceries
> > and fast food restaurants.
> >
> > But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
> > committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the adult
> > U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat, poultry
or
> > seafood.
> >
> > Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian Resource
> > Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in
meat
> > and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.
> >
> > "This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us,"
he
> > said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
> > because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."
> >
> > Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly
30
> > percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks out
> > vegetarian meals.
> >
> > Room for flexibility
> > Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
> > Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
> nation'
> > s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.
> >
> > "Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
> cutting
> > back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
> know
> > they should do," she said.
> >
> > Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic vegetarian
> > eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another perspective.
> The
> > former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
> they
> > didn't.
> >
> > Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room - and
> for
> > many people a need - for flexibility.
> >
> > "To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where the
> > protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got a
> > great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
> chicken,
> > or a grass-fed cow."
> >
> > Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
> Colo.-based
> > chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority
of
> > shoppers aren't vegetarians.
> >
> > Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers
are
> > concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic
products,
> > including meats.
> >
> > Publishers take notice
> > Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target the
> > part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even at
> > risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.
> >
> > Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based magazine
> with
> > a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
> > exclude even dairy and honey.
> >
> > Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the magazine's
> > editorial director.
> >
> > "There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
> tell
> > from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
> > vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a vegetarian
> menu
> > in their current diets."
> >
> > A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times,
considered
> > the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
> mostly
> > vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with broader
> > appeal.
> >
> > Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly, said
> the
> > changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
> > 300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.
> >
> > Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the
flexitarian
> > trend a good thing.
> >
> > Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical
> > Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
> focusing
> > more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.
> >
> > "From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
> back
> > on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two
people
> > cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
> > vegetarian."
> >
> >
>
>

"Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
...
> that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian lifestyle-give
up
> this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
> Michael

i guess my opposition to it is just that they will eat anything so it
doesn't tell you anything. a lot of vegans are super opposed to the
pesco-veg prefix (and the pollo-veg one, which is getting just a little
rediculous..."i'm a pesco-pollo-lacto-ovo-veg!") but at least those specify
what you don't eat, you know? i think of those ones as the ones that people
use when they are transitioning. cause they do tend to cut out a whole food
group at a time and try their best to be INflexible with it. you know,
first they don't eat any red meat, then no chicken, then no fish etc....this
article looks like people eat veg most of the time, but just HAVE to have
some bacon sometimes, and just do. they might not have any intention of
every fully restricting a food group. that to me is just not something that
needs its own word.
then again, if people calling themselves flexitarian means that no one will
every try to feed a vegan chicken again, since they won't have seen this
'vegan' chowing down on chicken wings *shudder* then hey, it could be a good
thing.

> "katie" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> > man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
were
> > having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> > labels? flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
> > dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
> > flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the
circumstances
> > under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> > someone you're a flexitarian? that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way
> some
> > of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> > hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
> > that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
> > the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> > people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> > healthily.
> >
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/
> > >
> > > CONCORD, N.H. - Even after five years, Christy Pugh has no trouble
> > sticking
> > > to her vegetarian regimen.
> > >
> > > advertisement
> > >
> > > The secret to her success? Eating meat.
> > >
> > > "Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad vegetarian, that I'm not strict
enough
> or
> > > good enough," the 28-year-old bookkeeper from Concord said recently.
"I
> > > really like vegetarian food but I'm just not 100 percent committed."
> > >
> > > Pugh is one of a growing number of part-time vegetarians whose loose
> > > adherence to the meat-free diet is transforming a decades-old movement
> and
> > > the industry that feeds it.
> > >
> > > 'I really like sausage'
> > > These so-called "flexitarians" - a term voted most useful word of 2003
> by
> > > the American Dialect Society - are motivated less by animal rights
than
> by
> > a
> > > growing body of medical data that suggests health benefits from eating
> > more
> > > vegetarian foods.
> > >
> > > "There's so many reasons that people are vegetarians ... I find that
> > nobody
> > > ever gives me a hard time when I say I usually eat vegetarian. But I
> > really
> > > like sausage," Pugh said.
> > >
> > > In recent years the market for vegetarian friendly foods has exploded,
> > with
> > > items such as soy milk and veggie burgers showing up in mainstream
> > groceries
> > > and fast food restaurants.
> > >
> > > But even the diet's activists say that growth can't be attributed to
> > > committed vegetarians, who are estimated at about 3 percent of the
adult
> > > U.S. population, or about 5.7 million people never eating meat,
poultry
> or
> > > seafood.
> > >
> > > Charles Stahler, co-director of the Baltimore-based Vegetarian
Resource
> > > Group, credits the growth to flexitarians - vegetarians who dabble in
> meat
> > > and carnivores who seek out vegetarian meals.
> > >
> > > "This is why Burger King has a veggie burger. It's not because of us,"
> he
> > > said. "The true vegetarians wouldn't rush to Burger King anyway. It's
> > > because of those people in the middle. They are the driving audience."
> > >
> > > Though flexitarian headcounts are imprecise, Stahler estimates roughly
> 30
> > > percent to 40 percent of the population at least occasionally seeks
out
> > > vegetarian meals.
> > >
> > > Room for flexibility
> > > Suzanne Havala Hobbs, a nutrition professor at the University of North
> > > Carolina at Chapel Hill, credits the growth of flexitarianism to the
> > nation'
> > > s better understanding of the diet-disease connection.
> > >
> > > "Whether you make a commitment to eating strictly vegetarian or not,
> > cutting
> > > back your dependence on meat is something most people acknowledge they
> > know
> > > they should do," she said.
> > >
> > > Mollie Katzen, a cookbook author and a founder of the iconic
vegetarian
> > > eatery Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, N.Y., takes another
perspective.
> > The
> > > former vegetarian thinks people who eschew meat would be better off if
> > they
> > > didn't.
> > >
> > > Though she still advocates vegetable-based diets, Katzen sees room -
and
> > for
> > > many people a need - for flexibility.
> > >
> > > "To base our diet there, yes. Absolutely," she said. "However, where
the
> > > protein comes from in that diet, I don't feel it's wrong if you've got
a
> > > great big plate of vegetables your protein is from a healthy, happy
> > chicken,
> > > or a grass-fed cow."
> > >
> > > Plenty of people seem to agree. At Wild Oats stores, a Boulder,
> > Colo.-based
> > > chain of natural foods grocers that cater to vegetarians, the majority
> of
> > > shoppers aren't vegetarians.
> > >
> > > Tracy Spencer, a spokeswoman for the company, said Wild Oats shoppers
> are
> > > concerned about health and want the grocer's natural and organic
> products,
> > > including meats.
> > >
> > > Publishers take notice
> > > Publishers of vegetarian magazines also are taking notice. To target
the
> > > part-timers many have softened their approach to meatless diets, even
at
> > > risk of alienating the far smaller reader pool of true vegetarians.
> > >
> > > Until last year Natural Health, a Woodland Hills, Calif.-based
magazine
> > with
> > > a monthly circulation of 300,000, published only vegan recipes, which
> > > exclude even dairy and honey.
> > >
> > > Now the recipes regularly include meat, said Barb Harris, the
magazine's
> > > editorial director.
> > >
> > > "There is a big interest in vegetarianism," she said. "But we can also
> > tell
> > > from our readership that these are not people who are following a pure
> > > vegetarian lifestyle. These are people who are integrating a
vegetarian
> > menu
> > > in their current diets."
> > >
> > > A similar change occurred at the 30-year-old Vegetarian Times,
> considered
> > > the standardbearer of vegetarianism. Though still meat-free, the once
> > mostly
> > > vegan magazine focuses less on activism and more on recipes with
broader
> > > appeal.
> > >
> > > Carla Davis, managing editor of the Glen Allen, Va.-based monthly,
said
> > the
> > > changes were made after a survey showed 70 percent of the magazine's
> > > 300,000-plus readers weren't vegetarian.
> > >
> > > Even the strictest of vegetarian advocacy groups considers the
> flexitarian
> > > trend a good thing.
> > >
> > > Bruce Friedrich, spokesman for Norfolk, Va.-based People for the
Ethical
> > > Treatment of Animals, said he doesn't see any harm in vegetarianism
> > focusing
> > > more on food than the issues that spurred the movement.
> > >
> > > "From our perspective, if people influenced by health consequently cut
> > back
> > > on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals," he said. "If two
> people
> > > cut their meat in half it helps as much as one person going completely
> > > vegetarian."
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

katie wrote:

> man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
> having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> labels?

Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?

> flexitarians are omnivores.

They're clearly different from people who are
omnivorous at every meal.

> you should have a word for your
> dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
eat because it will make you very sick.

> but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

Not all the time. That's the key.

> they just choose the circumstances
> under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> someone you're a flexitarian?

Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
(who don't even want to know anyway?)

> that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

You are demanding that people approach food issues the
same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
visit your food preferences on people, so you are
assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.

> that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
> the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> healthily.

And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.

And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
were
> > having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> > labels?
>
> Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?

vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is necessary if
you're going somewhere to eat. i think that label is alright since it's
easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this and
this and this etc..."

>
> > flexitarians are omnivores.
>
> They're clearly different from people who are
> omnivorous at every meal.

sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would assume
that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're flexible,
right? so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.

>
> > you should have a word for your
> > dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
>
> Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
> also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
> invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
> eat because it will make you very sick.

YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
myself.

>
> > but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>
> Not all the time. That's the key.

true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
label for it. and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't want
to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is concerned,
you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.

>
> > they just choose the circumstances
> > under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> > someone you're a flexitarian?
>
> Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
> anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
> (who don't even want to know anyway?)

no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
know how these catch-phrases take off.

>
> > that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> > of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> > hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
>
> You are demanding that people approach food issues the
> same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
> visit your food preferences on people, so you are
> assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
>

i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my food
preferences on anyone. i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
order to avoid eating animal products. but the whole point of the
flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
flexible.

> > that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
> > the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> > people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> > healthily.
>
> And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.

declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous. it has a
purpose, which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
fed something on that list. certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork. but somehow i wonder if
those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like vegans
who eat chicken ()
>
> And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.

GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so. i top
posted on the above thread because it was an article, and i had nothing in
my post that needed to be interspersed in the article for clarity or
context. unlike this, where i am not top-posting because i am responding to
individual items that need their context. i don't think that's unreasonable
at all. you need to chill out.

katie wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
>
> were
>
>>>having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
>>>labels?
>>
>>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
>
>
> vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is necessary if
> you're going somewhere to eat.

It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
You are grossly inconsistent.

> i think that label is alright since it's
> easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this and
> this and this etc..."

I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.

>
>
>>>flexitarians are omnivores.
>>
>>They're clearly different from people who are
>>omnivorous at every meal.
>
>
> sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would assume
> that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're flexible,
> right?

No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
back and reread it.

> so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
> anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.
>
>
>>>you should have a word for your
>>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
>>
>>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
>>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
>>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
>>eat because it will make you very sick.
>
>
> YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
> not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
> your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
> myself.

No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.

Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.

>
>
>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>>
>>Not all the time. That's the key.
>
>
> true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
> label for it.

They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
to describe them.

> and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
> most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't want
> to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is concerned,
> you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.

You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
understood what they're about.

>
>
>>>they just choose the circumstances
>>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
>>
>>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
>>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
>>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
>
>
> no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
> good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
> a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
> know how these catch-phrases take off.

It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".

>
>
>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
>>>hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
>
>>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
>>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
>>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
>>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
>>
>
>
> i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my food
> preferences on anyone.

You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
don't eat meat.

> i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
> they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
> someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
> that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
> order to avoid eating animal products.

Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.

> but the whole point of the
> flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
> since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
> flexible.

NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
The flexibility is PERIODIC.

>
>
>>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
>
>>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
>>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
>>>healthily.
>>
>>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
>
>
> declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.

It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
by definition superfluous.

> it has a purpose,

Self aggrandizement.

> which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
> fed something on that list.

No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
statement being made by an announcement of being
"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.

> certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
> trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
> hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.

It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.

> but somehow i wonder if
> those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like vegans
> who eat chicken ()
>
>>And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.
>
>
> GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so.

Your top-posting has NEVER been appropriate.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>katie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there
> >
> > were
> >
> >>>having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> >>>labels?
> >>
> >>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
> >
> >
> > vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
necessary if
> > you're going somewhere to eat.
>
> It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
> You are grossly inconsistent.

i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous. that is
not 'grossly inconsistent.' i think that having too many labels can get a
little nutty. i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
right? but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.

>
> > i think that label is alright since it's
> > easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
and
> > this and this etc..."
>
> I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
> because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.

this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'

>
> >
> >
> >>>flexitarians are omnivores.
> >>
> >>They're clearly different from people who are
> >>omnivorous at every meal.
> >
> >
> > sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
assume
> > that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
flexible,
> > right?
>
> No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
> back and reread it.

done.
>
> > so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
> > anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.
> >
> >
> >>>you should have a word for your
> >>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
> >>
> >>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
> >>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
> >>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
> >>eat because it will make you very sick.
> >
> >
> > YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to
eat or
> > not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was
at
> > your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to
explain
> > myself.
>
> No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.
>
> Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.

once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
merits.
and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
family dinners. maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended ()
any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
i mean.


>
> >
> >
> >>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
> >>
> >>Not all the time. That's the key.
> >
> >
> > true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
> > label for it.
>
> They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
> to describe them.
>
> > and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
> > most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
want
> > to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
concerned,
> > you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.
>
> You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
> matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
> create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
> they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
> strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
> infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
> nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
> understood what they're about.

from the article: 'I really like sausage'

>
> >
> >
> >>>they just choose the circumstances
> >>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> >>>someone you're a flexitarian?
> >>
> >>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
> >>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
> >>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
> >
> >
> > no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although
it's a
> > good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that
being in
> > a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
> > know how these catch-phrases take off.
>
> It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
> as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".

i wouldn't say resentful. but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
vegan eats sausages because they like them. but like i said in my earlier
post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.

>
> >
> >
> >>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> >>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
the
> >>>hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
> >
> >>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
> >>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
> >>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
> >>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
> >>
> >
> >
> > i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
food
> > preferences on anyone.
>
> You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
> don't eat meat.

if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
how odd...

>
> > i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
> > they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
> > someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people
do
> > that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
> > order to avoid eating animal products.
>
> Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.

that isn't what this thread is about

>
> > but the whole point of the
> > flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
> > since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
> > flexible.
>
> NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
> not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
> The flexibility is PERIODIC.

perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i would
think that label would apply to those folks.

>
> >
> >
> >>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
> >
> >>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> >>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat
more
> >>>healthily.
> >>
> >>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
> >
> >
> > declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.
>
> It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
> by definition superfluous.

not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
bandwagon-hopping. some of us actually apply the label to describe our
dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.

>
> > it has a purpose,
>
> Self aggrandizement.

no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
don't eat.

>
> > which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
> > fed something on that list.
>
> No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
> form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
> statement being made by an announcement of being
> "vegan" is bullshit; a lie.
>
whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the point
of this thread.

> > certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
> > trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
> > hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.
>
> It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.

yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who played
spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did you
hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that weird
vegan food!'

>
> > but somehow i wonder if
> > those trendy vegans are maybe more likely to be flexitarians...like
vegans
> > who eat chicken ()
> >
> >>And STOP TOP-POSTING, GODDAMNIT.
> >
> >
> > GODDAMNIT, i will top-post where i feel it is appropriate to do so.
>
> Your top-posting has NEVER been appropriate.
>
i believe that the instances where i top post is just fine. not to mention
that how i post is my business. i don't know why you're getting bent out of
shape about it.

katie wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
>>>
>>>
>>>vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
>>>necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.
>>
>>It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
>>You are grossly inconsistent.
>
>
> i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.

You have no standard for deciding which are which.

> that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'

Yes it is.

> i think that having too many labels can get a
> little nutty.

Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.

> i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
> right?

No. No humans are herbivores.

> but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
> prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.

Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
frugivore, omnivore.

>
>
>>>i think that label is alright since it's
>>>easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
>>>and this and this etc..."
>>
>>I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
>>because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.
>
>
> this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'

My participation here is based on my belief that it's
all wrong.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>flexitarians are omnivores.
>>>>
>>>>They're clearly different from people who are
>>>>omnivorous at every meal.
>>>
>>>
>>>sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
>>>assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
>>>flexible, right?
>>
>>No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
>>back and reread it.
>
>
> done.

Remains to be seen...

>
>>>so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
>>>anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>you should have a word for your
>>>>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
>>>>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
>>>>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
>>>>eat because it will make you very sick.
>>>
>>>
>>>YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
>>>not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
>>>your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
>>>myself.
>>
>>No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.
>>
>>Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.
>
>
> once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
> merits.

Your post may not be; mine is.

> and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
> family dinners.

Yes, it is.

> maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
> meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
> change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended ()
> any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
> i mean.

Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
that led you to declare yourself "vegan".

>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>>>>
>>>>Not all the time. That's the key.
>>>
>>>
>>>true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
>>>label for it.
>>
>>They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
>>to describe them.
>>
>>
>>>and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
>>>most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
>>>want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
>>>concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.
>>
>>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
>>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
>>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
>>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
>>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
>>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
>>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
>>understood what they're about.
>
>
> from the article: 'I really like sausage'

She doesn't eat it whenever it happens to be served.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>they just choose the circumstances
>>>>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
>>>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
>>>>
>>>>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
>>>>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
>>>>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
>>>
>>>
>>>no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
>>>good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
>>>a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
>>>know how these catch-phrases take off.
>>
>>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
>>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
>
>
> i wouldn't say resentful.

I would, but you can give it whatever label you like.
The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
but are purely about your image, both self-image and
the image you want to present to others.

> but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
> thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
> vegan eats sausages because they like them.

There was no suggestion in the article that the people
who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
belief in "animal rights".

Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
*image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.

> but like i said in my earlier
> post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
> since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
> wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.

There isn't really any confusion. One is either
vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
"lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
vegetarian.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
>>>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
>>>>>the hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
>
>>>>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
>>>>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
>>>>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
>>>>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
>>> food preferences on anyone.
>>
>>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
>>don't eat meat.
>
>
> if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
> they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
> suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...

Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
is bogus.

> gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
> how odd...
>
>
>>>i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
>>>they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
>>>someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
>>>that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
>>>order to avoid eating animal products.
>>
>>Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.
>
>
> that isn't what this thread is about

It is now.

>
>
>>>but the whole point of the
>>>flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
>>>since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
>>>flexible.
>>
>>NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
>>not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
>>The flexibility is PERIODIC.
>
>
> perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
> vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
> still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i would
> think that label would apply to those folks.

It'll be just one more in a long line of linguistic
pollution.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
>>>>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
>>>>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
>>>>>healthily.
>>>>
>>>>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.
>>
>>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
>>by definition superfluous.
>
>
> not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
> bandwagon-hopping.

Whatever reason they want to call it, it's no more than
bandwagon-hopping.

> some of us actually apply the label to describe our
> dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.

No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.

>
>
>>>it has a purpose,
>>
>>Self aggrandizement.
>
>
> no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
> don't eat.

No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
first place is self aggrandizement.

>
>
>>>which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
>>>fed something on that list.
>>
>>No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
>>form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
>>statement being made by an announcement of being
>>"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.
>>
>
> whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the point
> of this thread.

Now it is.

>
>
>>>certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
>>>trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
>>>hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.
>>
>>It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.
>
>
> yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
> happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
> media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who played
> spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did you
> hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that weird
> vegan food!'

How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
preferences of the Hollywood crowd...

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>katie wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
> >>>necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.
> >>
> >>It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
> >>You are grossly inconsistent.
> >
> >
> > i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.
>
> You have no standard for deciding which are which.

holy tofu man. i keep on telling you what my standard is. i consider the
'vegan' label to be useful because it tells people what you don't eat. that
is useful to people who don't want some well-meaning person trying to feed
them beef or whatnot.

>
> > that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > i think that having too many labels can get a
> > little nutty.
>
> Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
> is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.

if it is useful to me, (and it is) what's the problem with me using it?

>
> > i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
> > right?
>
> No. No humans are herbivores.

humans who exist on plant foods only are herbivores. you may not believe
that they are herbivores physiologically, and that is fine. but in terms of
what they eat, observationally, they are herbivores.

>
> > but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
> > prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.

ooooh, i forgot freegan ()
>
> Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
> including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
> zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
> frugivore, omnivore.
>
> >
> >
> >>>i think that label is alright since it's
> >>>easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
> >>>and this and this etc..."
> >>
> >>I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
> >>because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.
> >
> >
> > this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'
>
> My participation here is based on my belief that it's
> all wrong.
>
then perhaps you have gotten lost. this is a vegan FOOD board. not a
debating-the-merits-of-veganism board.

> >>>
> >>>>>flexitarians are omnivores.
> >>>>
> >>>>They're clearly different from people who are
> >>>>omnivorous at every meal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
> >>>assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
> >>>flexible, right?
> >>
> >>No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
> >>back and reread it.
> >
> >
> > done.
>
> Remains to be seen...
>
> >
> >>>so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
> >>>anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>you should have a word for your
> >>>>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
> >>>>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
> >>>>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
> >>>>eat because it will make you very sick.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to
eat or
> >>>not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was
at
> >>>your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to
explain
> >>>myself.
> >>
> >>No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.
> >>
> >>Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.
> >
> >
> > once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
> > merits.
>
> Your post may not be; mine is.
>
> > and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not
most,
> > family dinners.
>
> Yes, it is.

okay, you can just not eat the beef. you will still have family members
that are left confused and with hurt feelings that you did not eat their
beef. and they will harp and you for the entire time. every time they see
you with food. fun times.

>
> > maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
> > meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
> > change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended
()
> > any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know
what
> > i mean.
>
> Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
> that led you to declare yourself "vegan".

hmm...no, i like my lifestyle just fine, thank you. i feel much healthier.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
> >>>>
> >>>>Not all the time. That's the key.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
> >>>label for it.
> >>
> >>They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
> >>to describe them.
> >>
> >>
> >>>and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
> >>>most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
> >>>want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
> >>>concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you
anything.
> >>
> >>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
> >>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
> >>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
> >>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
> >>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
> >>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
> >>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
> >>understood what they're about.
> >
> >
> > from the article: 'I really like sausage'
>
> She doesn't eat it whenever it happens to be served.

maybe she doesn't. but some people call themselves vegetarian and are so
keen on avoiding conflict that they will eat it whenever its served. some
folks just don't want to be a 'burden,' or don't want to look different.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>they just choose the circumstances
> >>>>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to
tell
> >>>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
> >>>>
> >>>>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
> >>>>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
> >>>>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although
it's a
> >>>good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that
being in
> >>>a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now.
you
> >>>know how these catch-phrases take off.
> >>
> >>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
> >>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
> >
> >
> > i wouldn't say resentful.
>
> I would,
i wouldn't ()

but you can give it whatever label you like.
> The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
> that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
> the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
> that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
> dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
> but are purely about your image, both self-image and
> the image you want to present to others.
>
i'm sure that every human being's lifestyle choices are to some extent
influenced by image. everyone has to deal with their self-image and the
image they want to present to others. but i wouldn't say that it is
anywhere near the pure motivations for all vegans.
really man, you have to pick an argument. either we don't understand our
own lifestyle because it is based on inherently flawed moral beliefs, or
we're in it just for the image. it can't be both. if you're in it just for
the image, you don't give a shit about ethics. if you're in it just for the
ethics as you perceive them, that, and not image, is your motivation. at
least be consistent in your accusations.

> > but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
> > thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
> > vegan eats sausages because they like them.
>
> There was no suggestion in the article that the people
> who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
> fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
> vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
> belief in "animal rights".

who said they 'originated as vegans?' someone who eats sausage isn't a
vegan in the first place. and i know that the article is talking about
vegetarians, but i was merely pointing out that a lot of vegans seem to have
come across people who call themselves vegans, but who still eat animal
products sometimes.
>
> Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
> *image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.

i don't see how my getting annoyed at the prospect of people calling
themselves vegan who eat animal products and thereby confuse the omni
population as to what vegans eat, making it more difficult for me to find
vegan food that is really vegan, at all confirms this as an 'image' thing.

>
> > but like i said in my earlier
> > post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that
respect,
> > since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
> > wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.
>
> There isn't really any confusion. One is either
> vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
> "lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
> are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
> vegetarian.
>
the word vegetarian originally applied to vegetarians who ate dairy and
eggs. the word vegan was invented to differentiate those vegetarians who
didn't eat dairy and eggs, and all that useage of animal products stuff.
then you had vegetarians who didn't eat dairy or eggs, but who still wore
leather. those are strict vegetarians. so to differentiate themselves from
the strict vegetarians, someone probably tacked on the lacto-ovo part.
those who eat eggs and dairy are vegetarian.

> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> >>>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
> >>>>>the hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
> >
> >>>>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
> >>>>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
> >>>>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
> >>>>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
> >>> food preferences on anyone.
> >>
> >>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
> >>don't eat meat.
> >
> >
> > if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat
when
> > they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then
i
> > suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
>
> Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
> is bogus.

i don't see how. there are many reasons why i don't eat meat. one of the
main ones is for health reasons. i feel great eating like this. that
certainly isn't bogus.

>
> > gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food
situations,
> > how odd...
> >
> >
> >>>i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
> >>>they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
> >>>someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other
people do
> >>>that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
> >>>order to avoid eating animal products.
> >>
> >>Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.
> >
> >
> > that isn't what this thread is about
>
> It is now.
>
no thank you, i did not order a side-dish of thread hijacking ()
> >
> >>>but the whole point of the
> >>>flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other
people,
> >>>since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
> >>>flexible.
> >>
> >>NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
> >>not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
> >>The flexibility is PERIODIC.
> >
> >
> > perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
> > vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
> > still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i
would
> > think that label would apply to those folks.
>
> It'll be just one more in a long line of linguistic
> pollution.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
> >>>>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word'
for
> >>>>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat
more
> >>>>>healthily.
> >>>>
> >>>>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.
> >>
> >>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
> >>by definition superfluous.
> >
> >
> > not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
> > bandwagon-hopping.
>
> Whatever reason they want to call it, it's no more than
> bandwagon-hopping.

i disagree.
>
> > some of us actually apply the label to describe our
> > dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
>
> No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.
>
whether or not you think that people are vegan for practical purposes,
people actually do become vegan believing that it has practical purpose.
> >
> >>>it has a purpose,
> >>
> >>Self aggrandizement.
> >
> >
> > no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
> > don't eat.
>
> No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
> first place is self aggrandizement.

not at all. people who declare themselves vegan usually do so because they
have discovered how animals are treated in factory farming and animal
testing etc., and rather than the 'man-ruling-earth-and-nature' outlook that
western society holds, they are humbled, and want to help in any small way
that they can.
>
> >
> >
> >>>which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
> >>>fed something on that list.
> >>
> >>No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
> >>form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
> >>statement being made by an announcement of being
> >>"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.
> >>
> >
> > whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the
point
> > of this thread.
>
> Now it is.
>
hmmm...no...i don't see that on the menu ()

> >
> >>>certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
> >>>trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
> >>>hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.
> >>
> >>It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.
> >
> >
> > yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
> > happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
> > media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who
played
> > spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did
you
> > hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that
weird
> > vegan food!'
>
> How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
> to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
> preferences of the Hollywood crowd...

dude, i haven't been living under a rock. have you?
>
>

skatie wrote:
> man,

dude

> i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
> having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> labels?

Do you include "vegan" among "all these labels"?

> flexitarians are omnivores.

I think it's beneficial to know the reasons why people do what they do. In the
case of flexitarians -- who are a specific and distinct group of omnivores --
that label tells us that they are primarily health-oriented and secondarily
oriented towards vegetarian and vegetarian-type food. The distinction between
flexitarian and omnivore is similar to that made between vegan and vegetarian.

> you should have a word for your
> dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.

That's the idea. Vegan.

> but flexitarians will eat anything at all,

No, not anything at all. Flexitarians make healthier choices. They're not
seeking fried chicken or pork rinds.

> they just choose the circumstances
> under which they will eat certain things.

Their choices center on their health. That's more honest and legitimate than
specious claims about saving animals or being "cruelty-free."

> what good does it do to tell
> someone you're a flexitarian?

I don't see that many people call themselves that, rather it's a label used by
dieticians to describe that group of health-conscious consumers. Many
flexitarians call themselves "vegetarian" or "kind of vegetarian."

> that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

You should re-read the article.

> that's like just being an omnivore.

No, it isn't -- no more than a vegan is just being a vegetarian.

> you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.

Unlike pain-in-the-arse vegans who inquire about every ****ing ingredient and
every ****ing souce of ingredients.

> the term flexitarian is superfluous,

No, it's clear and concise. Mostly vegetarian, but focused on health rather than
SUPERFLUOUS notions like "saving animals" or being "cruelty-free."

> and just another 'catch word' for
> people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> healthily.

The trendy bandwagon is VEGAN. Few people call themselves "flexitarian," it's a
term used by dieticians. Flexitarians are normal in that they don't identify
themselves on the basis of what they eat, unlike abnormal vegans.

BTW, you top-posted again, girly-girl. Stop that.
<...>

skatie wrote:
>>that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian lifestyle-give
> up
>>this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
>
> i guess my opposition to it is just that they will eat anything so it
> doesn't tell you anything.

They won't eat "anything." They tend towards vegetarianism, but they're not anal
retentive about it. They'll eat some meat, usually leaner, healthier cuts, but
not always.

> a lot of vegans are super opposed to the
> pesco-veg prefix (and the pollo-veg one, which is getting just a little
> rediculous..."i'm a pesco-pollo-lacto-ovo-veg!") but at least those specify
> what you don't eat, you know? i think of those ones as the ones that people
> use when they are transitioning. cause they do tend to cut out a whole food
> group at a time and try their best to be INflexible with it. you know,
> first they don't eat any red meat, then no chicken, then no fish etc....this
> article looks like people eat veg most of the time, but just HAVE to have
> some bacon sometimes, and just do.

Is "part time vegetarian" more acceptable to you?

> they might not have any intention of
> every fully restricting a food group. that to me is just not something that
> needs its own word.

Do you need "vegan" to distinguish yourself from "vegetarian"?

> then again, if people calling themselves flexitarian means that no one will
> every try to feed a vegan chicken again, since they won't have seen this
> 'vegan' chowing down on chicken wings *shudder* then hey, it could be a good
> thing.

Why?

skatie wrote:
<...>
> and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
> family dinners. maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
> meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
> change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended ()
> any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
> i mean.

Your gran has every right to be concerned about your eating disorder. You could
be gracious and either eat her meat or not, but you choose instead to make a
scene about it, drama queen.

<...>
>>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
>>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
>>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
>>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
>>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
>>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
>>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
>>understood what they're about.
>
> from the article: 'I really like sausage'

That isn't at odds with being mostly vegetarian. Take a look in your grocery
store and find the soy sausages. Why do veg-ns buy those things if sausage isn't
consistent with a veg-n diet? (Why do they crave such products anyway if animal
flesh is "gross"?! Hypocrites!)

<...>
>>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
>>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
>
> i wouldn't say resentful. but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
> thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
> vegan eats sausages because they like them.

You little ****. Look at all the fake sausages sold to veg-ns to cater to their
TASTES and their aesthetics. Why do veg-ns buy such products?

http://www.thesoydailyclub.com/groce...usageAisle.asp

Veg-ns seem to like sausages, too.

> but like i said in my earlier
> post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
> since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
> wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.

The label is more valid, imo, than "vegan."

<...>
>>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
>>don't eat meat.
>
> if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
> they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
> suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
> gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
> how odd...

Drama queen.

<...>
>>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
>>by definition superfluous.
>
> not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
> bandwagon-hopping. some of us actually apply the label to describe our
> dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.

It's a fad. Welcome to the bandwagon, keep your hands and feet inside.

<...>
> i believe that the instances where i top post is just fine.

ARE fine. They're NOT.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> skatie wrote:
> >>that is the way most people are when they start vegetarian
lifestyle-give
> > up
> >>this then that etc. thought it was a friendly article.
> >
> > i guess my opposition to it is just that they will eat anything so it
> > doesn't tell you anything.
>
> They won't eat "anything." They tend towards vegetarianism, but they're
not anal
> retentive about it. They'll eat some meat, usually leaner, healthier cuts,
but
> not always.

i don't know how they make their food choices when they are choosing to eat
animal products. all i'm saying is that some folks who are veg*n 'most of
the time' eat animal products out of convenience, craving, pressure from
others (ie family dynamics, not wanting to be a 'burden,' friends 'egging'
you on - no pun intended), that kind of stuff
>
> > a lot of vegans are super opposed to the
> > pesco-veg prefix (and the pollo-veg one, which is getting just a little
> > rediculous..."i'm a pesco-pollo-lacto-ovo-veg!") but at least those
specify
> > what you don't eat, you know? i think of those ones as the ones that
people
> > use when they are transitioning. cause they do tend to cut out a whole
food
> > group at a time and try their best to be INflexible with it. you know,
> > first they don't eat any red meat, then no chicken, then no fish
etc....this
> > article looks like people eat veg most of the time, but just HAVE to
have
> > some bacon sometimes, and just do.
>
> Is "part time vegetarian" more acceptable to you?

ehh...i don't know...i know some folks call themselves 'semi-vegetarians.'
i don't really dig that. like i said, i just don't think that this is one
of those things that needs a label. especially if they're doing it for
health. it's easier to turn down grandma's home cooked whatnot if you say
that you're trying to not eat whatnot for health reasons. why not just say
'i try to eat vegetarian most of the time'?
>
> > they might not have any intention of
> > every fully restricting a food group. that to me is just not something
that
> > needs its own word.
>
> Do you need "vegan" to distinguish yourself from "vegetarian"?

yeah, because vegetarian generally means lacto-ovo, whereas
strict-vegetarian, the same as the new and equally superfluous word
'vegitan' is no animal products at all. those are just a way of eating.
but vegan is generally viewed as more of a lifestyle, encompassing not only
a strict vegetarian diet but also an aversion to the use of animal products
in other applications and to all or unneccessary animal testing.
>
> > then again, if people calling themselves flexitarian means that no one
will
> > every try to feed a vegan chicken again, since they won't have seen this
> > 'vegan' chowing down on chicken wings *shudder* then hey, it could be a
good
> > thing.
>
> Why?

because it's really a pain in the ass to have someone assuming like vegans
eat chicken or some other animal part just because they saw some 'vegan' do
it before. then you get the whole "you're vegan? do you eat fish? no?
cause my friend so and so is a vegan but she eats fish sometimes...how about
eggs?' and so on. it's even worse when people just assume it without asking
and then serve you a 'vegan' dish coated with cheese or made with beef stock
or something. then you have to find a way to turn it down without feeling
like a total ass. it's not only inconvenient, but also very socially
awkward.
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> skatie wrote:
> <...>
> > and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not
most,
> > family dinners. maybe you've never tried not eating something,
especially
> > meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
> > change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended
()
> > any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know
what
> > i mean.
>
> Your gran has every right to be concerned about your eating disorder. You
could
> be gracious and either eat her meat or not, but you choose instead to make
a
> scene about it, drama queen.

very funny. i know that you know that veganism is not an eating disorder.
i don't make any kind of scene, and my post above wouldn't give that
impression. people notice when you 'graciously' don't eat something.
especially family.
>
> <...>
> >>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
> >>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
> >>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
> >>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
> >>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
> >>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
> >>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
> >>understood what they're about.
> >
> > from the article: 'I really like sausage'
>
> That isn't at odds with being mostly vegetarian. Take a look in your
grocery
> store and find the soy sausages. Why do veg-ns buy those things if sausage
isn't
> consistent with a veg-n diet? (Why do they crave such products anyway if
animal
> flesh is "gross"?! Hypocrites!)

it is completely normal to crave animal products when you were raised with
them. especially when such food is associated with family gatherings and
holidays and good times and bonding with others. thinking that animal flesh
is gross, and eating something that fills their psychological, aesthetic,
and taste food needs but is not made of animal flesh, is not gross.
you will also find that a lot of vegans aren't into the fake meat products.
i'm certainly not. if they taste too much like 'gross flesh', it does
seriously gross me out. i don't like any of that vegan ground beef or super
meaty stuff. but hey, i do like veggie dogs and burgers. great convenience
factor, conventional - good for sharing with friends and family, and not
terribly 'meaty' tasting.

>
> <...>
> >>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
> >>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
> >
> > i wouldn't say resentful. but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
> > thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
> > vegan eats sausages because they like them.
>
> You little ****. Look at all the fake sausages sold to veg-ns to cater to
their
> TASTES and their aesthetics. Why do veg-ns buy such products?

i seriously do not see a need for the name-calling and nastiness. are you
here to discuss, or just to be mean to people anonymously?

>
> http://www.thesoydailyclub.com/groce...usageAisle.asp
>
> Veg-ns seem to like sausages, too.

if they eat SOY sausages, they're vegan. if they eat intestines stuffed
with ground up animals, they aren't vegan. there's nothing wrong with
eating something that tastes like something else if you like it.
>
> > but like i said in my earlier
> > post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that
respect,
> > since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
> > wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.
>
> The label is more valid, imo, than "vegan."

in your opinion.
>
> <...>
> >>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
> >>don't eat meat
> >
> > if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat
when
> > they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then
i
> > suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
> > gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food
situations,
> > how odd...
>
> Drama queen.

i don't see any drama queen component to that post. i think i'm allowed a
little sarcasm when someone repeatedly insists that i have a 'weird
compulsion to tell people i don't eat meat.'
>
> <...>
> >>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
> >>by definition superfluous.
> >
> > not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
> > bandwagon-hopping. some of us actually apply the label to describe our
> > dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
>
> It's a fad. Welcome to the bandwagon, keep your hands and feet inside.

i doubt it. some folks stick to this for life. some folks just stay for
the bandwagon ride.

>
> <...>
> > i believe that the instances where i top post is just fine.
>
> ARE fine. They're NOT.
>
what are you, the posting police?
> <...>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> skatie wrote:
> > man,
>
> dude
>
> > i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
> > having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> > labels?
>
> Do you include "vegan" among "all these labels"?

i already went over all of this with our dear friend jonathan ball. why not
do some background reading?
>
> > flexitarians are omnivores.
>
> I think it's beneficial to know the reasons why people do what they do. In
the
> case of flexitarians -- who are a specific and distinct group of
omnivores --
> that label tells us that they are primarily health-oriented and
secondarily
> oriented towards vegetarian and vegetarian-type food. The distinction
between
> flexitarian and omnivore is similar to that made between vegan and
vegetarian.

ehh...i agree that it's good to know why people do what they do. i don't
know that the comparison to vegan and vegetarian is valid. vegetarians are
primarily health-oriented and who knows what (or nothing) secondarily
oriented. vegans are motivated by a whole bunch of different things.
health can still be a primary motivation for them. and there isn't any
flexibility to either category. vegetarians usually aren't vegans who
occasionally eat eggs, dairy, gelatin and animal by-products and who
occasionally use animal products and stuff tested on animals.

>
> > you should have a word for your
> > dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
>
> That's the idea. Vegan.

yeah...
>
> > but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>
> No, not anything at all. Flexitarians make healthier choices. They're not
> seeking fried chicken or pork rinds.

depends on why someone calls themselves a flexitarian. if they truly follow
this 'healthy eating' definition, then yes.

>
> > they just choose the circumstances
> > under which they will eat certain things.
>
> Their choices center on their health. That's more honest and legitimate
than
> specious claims about saving animals or being "cruelty-free."

if the 'choices centre on health' thing does actually wind up being the
definition. i have a feeling that this one will be used as a 'i just eat
anything animal sometimes.' enter the fried chicken and pork rinds.
>
> > what good does it do to tell
> > someone you're a flexitarian?
>
> I don't see that many people call themselves that, rather it's a label
used by
> dieticians to describe that group of health-conscious consumers. Many
> flexitarians call themselves "vegetarian" or "kind of vegetarian."

that's why i think it might be beneficial, if they call themselves
flexitarian rather than vegetarian.

>
> > that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> > of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> > hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
>
> You should re-read the article.

i'm not going purely on the article here. we've all just met these folks
who call themselves vegetarians or vegans but eat outside of that sometimes,
for different reasons (including convenience), and i think that those are
the folks who will wind up with this label.
>
> > that's like just being an omnivore.
>
> No, it isn't -- no more than a vegan is just being a vegetarian.

omnivores eat both animal products and vegetable products. flexitarians
also eat both.
>
> > you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
>
> Unlike pain-in-the-arse vegans who inquire about every ****ing ingredient
and
> every ****ing souce of ingredients.

exactly. that's why some people crack. because they feel bad about eating
differently and being a burden on others. it's very easy to feed vegans,
but people get the idea like it's some big, difficult task.
>
> > the term flexitarian is superfluous,
>
> No, it's clear and concise. Mostly vegetarian, but focused on health
rather than
> SUPERFLUOUS notions like "saving animals" or being "cruelty-free."
>
> > and just another 'catch word' for
> > people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> > healthily.
>
> The trendy bandwagon is VEGAN. Few people call themselves "flexitarian,"
it's a
> term used by dieticians. Flexitarians are normal in that they don't
identify
> themselves on the basis of what they eat, unlike abnormal vegans.
>
> BTW, you top-posted again, girly-girl. Stop that.

as i said to jonothan ball, i will top-wherever i feel it is appropriate.
here i had nothing that needed to be woven into the article for clarity or
context, so i just wrote on top of it. after you guys reamed me out in an
earlier post, i did stop top-posting, as a courtesy, where i felt it was
appropriate. ultimately, you can do what you want to do in your posts, and
i will do what i want to do in my posts.
always yelling at people to fix their clocks or stop their top-posting (on
top of the nasty name-calling). you guys need to chill out.

ps: i really don't know why you keep calling me girly-girl. not that it
matters, but i'm female...but not terribly girly. and what's with always
adding an 's' to my name? skatie? i can't skate!

katie wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>katie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
>>>>>necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.
>>>>
>>>>It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
>>>>You are grossly inconsistent.
>>>
>>>
>>>i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.
>>
>>You have no standard for deciding which are which.
>
>
> holy tofu man. i keep on telling you what my standard is. i consider the
> 'vegan' label to be useful because it tells people what you don't eat.

That's a totally arbitrary and ad hoc determination of
what's "useful". There is no standard. You like that
label because YOU use it.


> is useful to people who don't want some well-meaning person trying to feed
> them beef or whatnot.
>
>
>>>that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'
>>
>>Yes it is.
>>
>>
>>>i think that having too many labels can get a
>>>little nutty.
>>
>>Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
>>is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.
>
>
> if it is useful to me, (and it is) what's the problem with me using it?

By itself, nothing. The problem is with you
denigrating a label someone ELSE finds useful, and your
reason for denigrating it. It isn't because you don't
find the new label useful; it's because you DO think it
somehow detracts from the attractiveness of the label
you use for yourself.

>
>
>>>i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
>>>right?
>>
>>No. No humans are herbivores.
>
>
> humans who exist on plant foods only are herbivores.

False. You are completely wrong. No humans are
herbivores. Cows are herbivores. See if you can
figure out what "herbivores" really means.

> you may not believe
> that they are herbivores physiologically, and that is fine. but in terms of
> what they eat, observationally, they are herbivores.

Wrong. You are completely and utterly wrong. Look it up.

>
>
>>>but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
>>>prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.
>
>
> ooooh, i forgot freegan ()
>
>>Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
>>including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
>>zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
>>frugivore, omnivore.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>i think that label is alright since it's
>>>>>easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
>>>>>and this and this etc..."
>>>>
>>>>I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
>>>>because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'
>>
>>My participation here is based on my belief that it's
>>all wrong.
>>
>
> then perhaps you have gotten lost.

I am not lost. I know exactly where I am, and why I'm
here.

> this is a vegan FOOD board.

Then what the **** was that guy doing inquiring about
CAR WAX?

> not a debating-the-merits-of-veganism board.

It's that, too. Now, at least.

>
>
>>>>>>>flexitarians are omnivores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They're clearly different from people who are
>>>>>>omnivorous at every meal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
>>>>>assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since they're
>>>>>flexible, right?
>>>>
>>>>No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
>>>>back and reread it.
>>>
>>>
>>>done.
>>
>>Remains to be seen...
>>
>>
>>>>>so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
>>>>>anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>you should have a word for your
>>>>>>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
>>>>>>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
>>>>>>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
>>>>>>eat because it will make you very sick.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to eat or
>>>>>not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i was at
>>>>>your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to explain
>>>>>myself.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.
>>>>
>>>>Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
>>>merits.
>>
>>Your post may not be; mine is.
>>
>>
>>>and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not most,
>>>family dinners.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>
>
> okay, you can just not eat the beef. you will still have family members
> that are left confused and with hurt feelings that you did not eat their
> beef.

How in the **** does giving some stupid label do
anything to assuage their hurt feelings?!

> and they will harp and you for the entire time.

A little defensive about your choice, are you?

> every time they see
> you with food. fun times.
>
>
>>>maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
>>>meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
>>>change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended
>
> ()
>
>>>any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know what
>>>i mean.
>>
>>Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
>>that led you to declare yourself "vegan".
>
>
> hmm...no, i like my lifestyle just fine, thank you. i feel much healthier.

It may be, but not because of eschewing *all* meat.
That's a bogus ethical choice, not a health choice.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not all the time. That's the key.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need a
>>>>>label for it.
>>>>
>>>>They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
>>>>to describe them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
>>>>>most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you don't
>>>>>want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
>>>>>concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you anything.
>
>>>>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
>>>>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
>>>>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
>>>>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
>>>>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
>>>>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
>>>>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
>>>>understood what they're about.
>>>
>>>
>>>from the article: 'I really like sausage'
>>
>>She doesn't eat it whenever it happens to be served.
>
>
> maybe she doesn't. but some people call themselves vegetarian and are so
> keen on avoiding conflict that they will eat it whenever its served.

Only insecure people like you.

> folks just don't want to be a 'burden,' or don't want to look different.

You already ARE different, for bogus reasons.

>
>>>
>>>>>>>they just choose the circumstances
>>>>>>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
>>>>>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
>>>>>>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
>>>>>>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although it's a
>>>>>good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that being in
>>>>>a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now. you
>>>>>know how these catch-phrases take off.
>>>>
>>>>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
>>>>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
>>>
>>>
>>>i wouldn't say resentful.
>>
>>I would,
>
> i wouldn't ()

I would, and I know what I'm talking about.

>
>> but you can give it whatever label you like.
>
>>The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
>>that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
>>the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
>>that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
>>dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
>>but are purely about your image, both self-image and
>>the image you want to present to others.
>>
>
> i'm sure that every human being's lifestyle choices are to some extent
> influenced by image.

Projection.

> everyone has to deal with their self-image and the
> image they want to present to others.

"vegans" obsess over it.

> but i wouldn't say that it is
> anywhere near the pure motivations for all vegans.

Some external projection of an "ethical" image is the
only motivation for being "vegan".

> really man, you have to pick an argument. either we don't understand our
> own lifestyle because it is based on inherently flawed moral beliefs, or
> we're in it just for the image. it can't be both.

Of course it can. Don't be a dope. "vegan" seize upon
a fatally flawed "ethical" belief as a way of
projecting an image of being "virtuous".

> if you're in it just for
> the image, you don't give a shit about ethics.

They don't. Not really; they couldn't and cling to a
demonstrably bogus ethics.

> if you're in it just for the
> ethics as you perceive them,

No one is. It's the ethics as they want to present to
others: an easy, bogus ethics that stupidly focuses
purely on a RULE - "don't consume animal parts" -
rather than any principle. There is no principle
whatever behind "veganism".

> that, and not image, is your motivation. at
> least be consistent in your accusations.

I am.

>
>
>>>but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
>>>thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
>>>vegan eats sausages because they like them.
>>
>>There was no suggestion in the article that the people
>>who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
>>fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
>>vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
>>belief in "animal rights".
>
>
> who said they 'originated as vegans?'

You just wrote above about "vegans" being portrayed as
liking sausages. You didn't say "vegetarian", you said
"vegan". YOU obviously want to believe the article was
about "vegans", i.e., those who consider themselves
so-called - but misnamed - "ethical" vegetarians. You
are wrong. The article makes plain that they are
health-oriented vegetarians, who quite rightly
recognize that some occasional meat in the diet doesn't
negatively impact health.

Anyway, you also made clear that it is damage to *your*
preferred label that is your only concern.

> someone who eats sausage isn't a
> vegan in the first place. and i know that the article is talking about
> vegetarians, but i was merely pointing out that a lot of vegans seem to have
> come across people who call themselves vegans, but who still eat animal
> products sometimes.

No, they don't.

>
>>Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
>>*image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.
>
>
> i don't see how my getting annoyed at the prospect of people calling
> themselves vegan who eat animal products

You've created a red herring.

> and thereby confuse the omni
> population as to what vegans eat, making it more difficult for me to find
> vegan food that is really vegan, at all confirms this as an 'image' thing.

Oh, come on!

>
>
>>>but like i said in my earlier
>>>post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
>>>since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
>>>wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.
>>
>>There isn't really any confusion. One is either
>>vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
>>"lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
>>are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
>>vegetarian.
>>
>
> the word vegetarian originally applied to vegetarians who ate dairy and
> eggs. the word vegan was invented to differentiate those vegetarians who
> didn't eat dairy and eggs,

Wrong. The horrible word "vegan" - it's just a
godawful word, not really a word at all - was coined to
describe people who didn't consume *any* animal
products at all, and not only in their food. They
didn't and don't wear leather, wool, eat honey, use
products containing lanolin, and so on.

> and all that useage of animal products stuff.
> then you had vegetarians who didn't eat dairy or eggs, but who still wore
> leather. those are strict vegetarians. so to differentiate themselves from
> the strict vegetarians, someone probably tacked on the lacto-ovo part.
> those who eat eggs and dairy are vegetarian.

Those who eat eggs and dairy are NOT vegetarian. I
don't give a **** what they want to call themselves.
Eggs and dairy are not vegetarian, period.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
>>>>>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever
>>>>>>>the hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'
>
>>>>>>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
>>>>>>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
>>>>>>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
>>>>>>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
>>>>>food preferences on anyone.
>>>>
>>>>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
>>>>don't eat meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat when
>>>they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then i
>>>suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
>>
>>Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
>>is bogus.
>
>
> i don't see how. there are many reasons why i don't eat meat. one of the
> main ones is for health reasons. i feel great eating like this. that
> certainly isn't bogus.

To the extent any of it is based on supposed ethics,
it's bogus. There is no principle behind it.
"veganism" is usually taken as synonymous with
so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, and so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism is a principle-free
monstrosity. It is PURELY about obeying a consumption
rule, NOT about any moral principle.

>
>
>>>gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food situations,
>>>how odd...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
>>>>>they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
>>>>>someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other people do
>>>>>that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to in
>>>>>order to avoid eating animal products.
>>>>
>>>>Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>that isn't what this thread is about
>>
>>It is now.
>>
>
> no thank you, i did not order a side-dish of thread hijacking ()

Those are the breaks. It's always on the table.

>
>>>>>but the whole point of the
>>>>>flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other people,
>>>>>since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
>>>>>flexible.
>>>>
>>>>NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
>>>>not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
>>>>The flexibility is PERIODIC.
>>>
>>>
>>>perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
>>>vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons, and
>>>still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i would
>>>think that label would apply to those folks.
>>
>>It'll be just one more in a long line of linguistic
>>pollution.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
>>>>>>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
>>>>>>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
>>>>>>>healthily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.
>>>>
>>>>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
>>>>by definition superfluous.
>>>
>>>
>>>not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
>>>bandwagon-hopping.
>>
>>Whatever reason they want to call it, it's no more than
>>bandwagon-hopping.
>
>
> i disagree.
>
>>>some of us actually apply the label to describe our
>>>dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
>>
>>No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.
>>
>
> whether or not you think that people are vegan for practical purposes,
> people actually do become vegan believing that it has practical purpose.

They think it has ethical import, and it doesn't; well,
no ethical import other than showing moral confusion on
the part of the adherents.

>
>>>>>it has a purpose,
>>>>
>>>>Self aggrandizement.
>>>
>>>
>>>no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that you
>>>don't eat.
>>
>>No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
>>first place is self aggrandizement.
>
>
> not at all.

Completely.

> people who declare themselves vegan usually do so because they
> have discovered how animals are treated in factory farming and animal
> testing etc., and rather than the 'man-ruling-earth-and-nature' outlook that
> western society holds, they are humbled, and want to help in any small way
> that they can.

So they elect to follow purely a consumption *rule*,
one that has no ethical principle behind it whatever.
There is no ethical principle behind "veganism"; none
whatever.

>
>>>
>>>>>which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
>>>>>fed something on that list.
>>>>
>>>>No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
>>>>form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
>>>>statement being made by an announcement of being
>>>>"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>>whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the point
>>>of this thread.
>>
>>Now it is.
>>
>
> hmmm...no...i don't see that on the menu ()

Yet still it's there...

>
>
>>>>>certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
>>>>>trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all these
>>>>>hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.
>>>>
>>>>It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has been
>>>happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
>>>media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who played
>>>spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did you
>>>hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that weird
>>>vegan food!'
>>
>>How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
>>to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
>>preferences of the Hollywood crowd...
>
>
> dude, i haven't been living under a rock. have you?

I don't live under a rock, and I have no ****ING clue
what Hollywood starlets eat and don't eat. I tend to
pay attention to important things like the war on
terrorism and the trade deficit and the offshore
outsourcing of information technology jobs, not fatuous
National Enquirer-type shit about what movie starlets
do and don't eat.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> katie wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>katie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>katie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>Excuse me??? What the hell is "vegan"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>vegan is a label that tells people what you don't eat, which is
> >>>>>necessary if you're going somewhere to eat.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's a label, and you were complaining about labels.
> >>>>You are grossly inconsistent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.
> >>
> >>You have no standard for deciding which are which.
> >
> >
> > holy tofu man. i keep on telling you what my standard is. i consider
the
> > 'vegan' label to be useful because it tells people what you don't eat.
>
> That's a totally arbitrary and ad hoc determination of
> what's "useful". There is no standard. You like that
> label because YOU use it.

you asked for MY standard. that is what MY standard is. i didn't claim
that it was THE standard.
>
>
> > is useful to people who don't want some well-meaning person trying to
feed
> > them beef or whatnot.
> >
> >
> >>>that is not 'grossly inconsistent.'
> >>
> >>Yes it is.
> >>
> >>
> >>>i think that having too many labels can get a
> >>>little nutty.
> >>
> >>Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
> >>is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.
> >
> >
> > if it is useful to me, (and it is) what's the problem with me using it?
>
> By itself, nothing. The problem is with you
> denigrating a label someone ELSE finds useful, and your
> reason for denigrating it. It isn't because you don't
> find the new label useful; it's because you DO think it
> somehow detracts from the attractiveness of the label
> you use for yourself.
>
i don't think it 'detracts from the attractiveness' of my 'label.' i think
that people who call themselves vegan and then eat steak are the ones
screwing with the vegan label.
> >
> >>>i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
> >>>right?
> >>
> >>No. No humans are herbivores.
> >
> >
> > humans who exist on plant foods only are herbivores.
>
> False. You are completely wrong. No humans are
> herbivores. Cows are herbivores. See if you can
> figure out what "herbivores" really means.

herbivore /n. an animal that feeds on plants.
humans are animals.
vegans are humans that feed on plants.
>
> > you may not believe
> > that they are herbivores physiologically, and that is fine. but in
terms of
> > what they eat, observationally, they are herbivores.
>
> Wrong. You are completely and utterly wrong. Look it up.

see above.
>
> >
> >
> >>>but we've added vegetarian, vegan, lacto-, ovo-, pesco-, and pollo-
> >>>prefixes, vegitan, fruitarian, and now flexitarian? geez louise.
> >
> >
> > ooooh, i forgot freegan ()
> >
> >>Get rid of ALL of the clearly socio-politcal ones,
> >>including "vegan". The ones to keep are the
> >>zoologically descriptive ones: herbivore, carnivore,
> >>frugivore, omnivore.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>i think that label is alright since it's
> >>>>>easier (when people know what it means) than saying "i don't eat this
> >>>>>and this and this etc..."
> >>>>
> >>>>I think that label is not "alright" [sic] at all,
> >>>>because I think "veganism" is all wrong. It's bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all
wrong'
> >>
> >>My participation here is based on my belief that it's
> >>all wrong.
> >>
> >
> > then perhaps you have gotten lost.
>
> I am not lost. I know exactly where I am, and why I'm
> here.
>
> > this is a vegan FOOD board.
>
> Then what the **** was that guy doing inquiring about
> CAR WAX?
>
i'd say he figured that if anyone knew where to find vegan car wax, it would
be a group of vegans.

> > not a debating-the-merits-of-veganism board.
>
> It's that, too. Now, at least.
>
if you want a vegan debate board, why not just make one? this one is
supposed to be about vegan food. you know, good, friendly, recipes and
stuff.

> >
> >>>>>>>flexitarians are omnivores.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They're clearly different from people who are
> >>>>>>omnivorous at every meal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>sure they are. but if a flexitarian goes to someone's house, i would
> >>>>>assume that they'll eat whatever that person is serving, since
they're
> >>>>>flexible, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>No. Clearly, you didn't understand the article. Go
> >>>>back and reread it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>done.
> >>
> >>Remains to be seen...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>so then the label is superfluous, since it doesn't tell the host
> >>>>>anything. you're essentially an omnivore, as far as they're
concerned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>you should have a word for your
> >>>>>>>dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why? I don't give a **** what you do or don't eat. I
> >>>>>>also DON'T want you to tell me about it, UNLESS I've
> >>>>>>invited you for dinner and there's something you can't
> >>>>>>eat because it will make you very sick.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>YOU don't give a **** what I do or don't eat, since i'm not trying to
eat or
> >>>>>not eat something with YOU. if you were my grannie, though, and i
was at
> >>>>>your house for dinner, and you tried to feed me cow, i would need to
explain
> >>>>>myself.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you don't. Just don't eat the beef.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your reasons for not eating it, however, are bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>once again, this post isn't about whether or not you think veganism has
> >>>merits.
> >>
> >>Your post may not be; mine is.
> >>
> >>
> >>>and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not
most,
> >>>family dinners.
> >>
> >>Yes, it is.
> >
> >
> > okay, you can just not eat the beef. you will still have family members
> > that are left confused and with hurt feelings that you did not eat their
> > beef.
>
> How in the **** does giving some stupid label do
> anything to assuage their hurt feelings?!

personally, i think that just refusing it and saying nothing will hurt their
feelings more. cause they might think that you think there's something
wrong with their cooking or something, and feel bad about themselves. but
if it's because of some choice you've made, they don't have to feel so bad,
since they can say 'hey, my cooking is awesome, you're just a crackpot'
>
> > and they will harp and you for the entire time.
>
> A little defensive about your choice, are you?

i am not defensive about my choice, even in the face of people 'egging' me
on, and trying to draw me into debates about my lifestyle choices. but that
doesn't change the fact that my family does like to harp at me about food,
among just about everything else. that's just how they are. i've learned
to not take the bait.
>
> > every time they see
> > you with food. fun times.
> >
> >
> >>>maybe you've never tried not eating something, especially
> >>>meat, the 'main' part of the dinner, without explaining yourself. any
> >>>change in eating habits tends to get you a grilling, no pun intended
> >
> > ()
> >
> >>>any vegan with a family, especially a nosy grannie, will probably know
what
> >>>i mean.
> >>
> >>Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
> >>that led you to declare yourself "vegan".
> >
> >
> > hmm...no, i like my lifestyle just fine, thank you. i feel much
healthier.
>
> It may be, but not because of eschewing *all* meat.
> That's a bogus ethical choice, not a health choice.
>
not eating any meat is a health choice for some people.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Not all the time. That's the key.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>true, not all the time. but when you're just at home, you don't need
a
> >>>>>label for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>They largely don't use it. It's a label used by others
> >>>>to describe them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>and when you're out in public, i figure that's when you're
> >>>>>most likely to eat something meaty. cause you're flexible. you
don't
> >>>>>want to be a pain in someone's ass. so then, as far as the public is
> >>>>>concerned, you're an omnivore, since they can usually feed you
anything.
> >
> >>>>You are getting it all wrong. They don't eat meat as a
> >>>>matter of convenience, as a matter of not wanting to
> >>>>create a scene. They *periodically* eat meat because
> >>>>they recognize that getting proper nutrition on a
> >>>>strictly vegetarian diet is very difficult, and so they
> >>>>infrequently eat some meat in order to relieve the
> >>>>nutrition-planning burden. You fundamentally have not
> >>>>understood what they're about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>from the article: 'I really like sausage'
> >>
> >>She doesn't eat it whenever it happens to be served.
> >
> >
> > maybe she doesn't. but some people call themselves vegetarian and are
so
> > keen on avoiding conflict that they will eat it whenever its served.
>
> Only insecure people like you.

i am not one of those people. i am one of those 'pain in the ass' diners,
remember?
>
> > folks just don't want to be a 'burden,' or don't want to look different.
>
> You already ARE different, for bogus reasons.
>
we are all different, dear ()
> >>>
> >>>>>>>they just choose the circumstances
> >>>>>>>under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to
tell
> >>>>>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why are people under any obligation to tell anyone
> >>>>>>anything? What makes you think they DO tell people
> >>>>>>(who don't even want to know anyway?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>no one is under any obligation to tell anyone how they eat, although
it's a
> >>>>>good idea if you're at their house and expect to eat. i think that
being in
> >>>>>a major newspaper means that they do tell people, or sure will now.
you
> >>>>>know how these catch-phrases take off.
> >>>>
> >>>>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
> >>>>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>i wouldn't say resentful.
> >>
> >>I would,
> >
> > i wouldn't ()
>
> I would, and I know what I'm talking about.

nehh...seeing as how you only 'know' me from this discussion board, i don't
really think that you do know what you're talking about.
especially when i've already said that i think the flexitarian thing could
turn out to be a good thing.
>
> >
> >> but you can give it whatever label you like.
> >
> >>The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
> >>that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
> >>the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
> >>that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
> >>dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
> >>but are purely about your image, both self-image and
> >>the image you want to present to others.
> >>
> >
> > i'm sure that every human being's lifestyle choices are to some extent
> > influenced by image.
>
> Projection.

psychology.
>
> > everyone has to deal with their self-image and the
> > image they want to present to others.
>
> "vegans" obsess over it.

no more than anyone else.
>
> > but i wouldn't say that it is
> > anywhere near the pure motivations for all vegans.
>
> Some external projection of an "ethical" image is the
> only motivation for being "vegan".
>
not the only motivation.

> > really man, you have to pick an argument. either we don't understand
our
> > own lifestyle because it is based on inherently flawed moral beliefs, or
> > we're in it just for the image. it can't be both.
>
> Of course it can. Don't be a dope. "vegan" seize upon
> a fatally flawed "ethical" belief as a way of
> projecting an image of being "virtuous".

i maintain that if they're in it 'just for the image' they don't really give
a damn about the ethics. and if they're in it purely for the ethics, maybe
they don't care about the image. maybe they don't even like the 'image.'
>
> > if you're in it just for
> > the image, you don't give a shit about ethics.
>
> They don't. Not really; they couldn't and cling to a
> demonstrably bogus ethics.

i'm sure that bandwagoners would have no problem with doing that.
>
> > if you're in it just for the
> > ethics as you perceive them,
>
> No one is. It's the ethics as they want to present to
> others: an easy, bogus ethics that stupidly focuses
> purely on a RULE - "don't consume animal parts" -
> rather than any principle. There is no principle
> whatever behind "veganism".

emphasis on 'how you perceive them'
>
> > that, and not image, is your motivation. at
> > least be consistent in your accusations.
>
> I am.
>
> >
> >
> >>>but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
> >>>thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls
themselves
> >>>vegan eats sausages because they like them.
> >>
> >>There was no suggestion in the article that the people
> >>who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
> >>fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
> >>vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
> >>belief in "animal rights".
> >
> >
> > who said they 'originated as vegans?'
>
> You just wrote above about "vegans" being portrayed as
> liking sausages. You didn't say "vegetarian", you said
> "vegan". YOU obviously want to believe the article was
> about "vegans", i.e., those who consider themselves
> so-called - but misnamed - "ethical" vegetarians. You
> are wrong. The article makes plain that they are
> health-oriented vegetarians, who quite rightly
> recognize that some occasional meat in the diet doesn't
> negatively impact health.
>
i think this vegan/vegetarian thing is a bit nitpicky. neither eat
sausages. both the vegetarian and vegan food labels could be screwed up if
either run around eating sausages.

> Anyway, you also made clear that it is damage to *your*
> preferred label that is your only concern.
>
if it results in vegans getting served animal products, yes, it would
concern me. i really can't see any other reason for concern about this
label.

> > someone who eats sausage isn't a
> > vegan in the first place. and i know that the article is talking about
> > vegetarians, but i was merely pointing out that a lot of vegans seem to
have
> > come across people who call themselves vegans, but who still eat animal
> > products sometimes.
>
> No, they don't.

how would you know? you're not a vegan.
>
> >
> >>Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
> >>*image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.
> >
> >
> > i don't see how my getting annoyed at the prospect of people calling
> > themselves vegan who eat animal products
>
> You've created a red herring.

i really don't see that. i'm talking in general about people who use veg*n
labels but don't conform to them.
>
> > and thereby confuse the omni
> > population as to what vegans eat, making it more difficult for me to
find
> > vegan food that is really vegan, at all confirms this as an 'image'
thing.
>
> Oh, come on!
>
obviously, what with you not being vegan, you haven't encountered this
difficulty. it does sound absurd, but you'd be suprised how people get
these labels screwed up.

> >
> >>>but like i said in my earlier
> >>>post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that
respect,
> >>>since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
> >>>wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.
> >>
> >>There isn't really any confusion. One is either
> >>vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
> >>"lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
> >>are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
> >>vegetarian.
> >>
> >
> > the word vegetarian originally applied to vegetarians who ate dairy and
> > eggs. the word vegan was invented to differentiate those vegetarians
who
> > didn't eat dairy and eggs,
>
> Wrong. The horrible word "vegan" - it's just a
> godawful word, not really a word at all - was coined to
> describe people who didn't consume *any* animal
> products at all, and not only in their food. They
> didn't and don't wear leather, wool, eat honey, use
> products containing lanolin, and so on.

okay, i got eggs, dairy, and useage of animal products. i forgot to mention
food useage of animal products. pardon me.
>
> > and all that useage of animal products stuff.
> > then you had vegetarians who didn't eat dairy or eggs, but who still
wore
> > leather. those are strict vegetarians. so to differentiate themselves
from
> > the strict vegetarians, someone probably tacked on the lacto-ovo part.
> > those who eat eggs and dairy are vegetarian.
>
> Those who eat eggs and dairy are NOT vegetarian. I
> don't give a **** what they want to call themselves.
> Eggs and dairy are not vegetarian, period.
>
strangely enough, eggs and dairy have always been considered to be
vegetarian. as i said, not 'strict' vegetarian, but vegetarian in its
conventional useage does mean lacto-ovo-veg. even the dictionary doesn't
agree with you on this one; it doesn't distinguish between strict vegetarian
and the conventional, lacto-ovo assumption:
vegetarian: n. a person who abstains from animal food, esp. that from
slaughtered animals, though often not dairy and eggs.

> >
> >>>
> >>>>>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> >>>>>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me
whatever
> >>>>>>>the hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
flexible.'
> >
> >>>>>>You are demanding that people approach food issues the
> >>>>>>same way you do. YOU feel some weird compulsion to
> >>>>>>visit your food preferences on people, so you are
> >>>>>>assuming, wrongly, that others do, too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>i'm not demanding anything. i have no 'weird compulsion' to visit my
> >>>>>food preferences on anyone.
> >>>>
> >>>>You feel a weird compulsion to let people know that you
> >>>>don't eat meat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>if by 'weird compulsion' you mean telling people that i don't eat meat
when
> >>>they offer it to me, or when i am going to their house for a meal, then
i
> >>>suppose i do have a 'weird compulsion'...
> >>
> >>Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
> >>is bogus.
> >
> >
> > i don't see how. there are many reasons why i don't eat meat. one of
the
> > main ones is for health reasons. i feel great eating like this. that
> > certainly isn't bogus.
>
> To the extent any of it is based on supposed ethics,
> it's bogus. There is no principle behind it.
> "veganism" is usually taken as synonymous with
> so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, and so-called
> "ethical" vegetarianism is a principle-free
> monstrosity. It is PURELY about obeying a consumption
> rule, NOT about any moral principle.
>
whether or not you feel that the moral principle is valid, most people do
become vegans partly taking into account some moral principle.
> >
> >>>gee, telling people your dietary choices when faced with food
situations,
> >>>how odd...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>i do, however, tell people how i eat either when
> >>>>>they ask, or when i have to because i'm at an omni-restaurant or at
> >>>>>someone's house. and i don't think that i am assuming that other
people do
> >>>>>that so much...i mean, i know that vegans do, cause we kinda have to
in
> >>>>>order to avoid eating animal products.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your reasoning for not eating animal products is bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>that isn't what this thread is about
> >>
> >>It is now.
> >>
> >
> > no thank you, i did not order a side-dish of thread hijacking ()
>
> Those are the breaks. It's always on the table.
>
> >
> >>>>>but the whole point of the
> >>>>>flexitarian thing is that you DON'T have to do that around other
people,
> >>>>>since you'll probably eat whatever they try to feed you, since you're
> >>>>>flexible.
> >>>>
> >>>>NO! You just aren't getting it. The flexibility is
> >>>>not situational, at least not on a meal-to-meal basis.
> >>>>The flexibility is PERIODIC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>perhaps not in this article. but i'm sure we've all met vegetarians or
> >>>vegans who situationally eat non veg*n stuff, for different reasons,
and
> >>>still call themselves veg*n. if this flexitarian word takes off, i
would
> >>>think that label would apply to those folks.
> >>
> >>It'll be just one more in a long line of linguistic
> >>pollution.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner
guest.
> >>>>>>>the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word'
for
> >>>>>>>people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat
more
> >>>>>>>healthily.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>And declaring oneself "vegan" isn't? You're wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>declaring oneself vegan, when you need to, is not superfluous.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
> >>>>by definition superfluous.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
> >>>bandwagon-hopping.
> >>
> >>Whatever reason they want to call it, it's no more than
> >>bandwagon-hopping.
> >
> >
> > i disagree.
> >
> >>>some of us actually apply the label to describe our
> >>>dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
> >>
> >>No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.
> >>
> >
> > whether or not you think that people are vegan for practical purposes,
> > people actually do become vegan believing that it has practical purpose.
>
> They think it has ethical import, and it doesn't; well,
> no ethical import other than showing moral confusion on
> the part of the adherents.

people adhere to all kinds of different moral values, many with very
disputed validity.
> >
> >>>>>it has a purpose,
> >>>>
> >>>>Self aggrandizement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>no, the purpose is to avoid having people try to feed you stuff that
you
> >>>don't eat.
> >>
> >>No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
> >>first place is self aggrandizement.
> >
> >
> > not at all.
>
> Completely.

why would you think that? most people who go vegan just don't want to
exploit animals, i think.
>
> > people who declare themselves vegan usually do so because they
> > have discovered how animals are treated in factory farming and animal
> > testing etc., and rather than the 'man-ruling-earth-and-nature' outlook
that
> > western society holds, they are humbled, and want to help in any small
way
> > that they can.
>
> So they elect to follow purely a consumption *rule*,
> one that has no ethical principle behind it whatever.
> There is no ethical principle behind "veganism"; none
> whatever.
>
there is an ethical principle behind it, whether or not you believe it is a
valid one.
> >>>
> >>>>>which is saying what you don't eat for the purposes of not getting
> >>>>>fed something on that list.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. The only purpose is self aggrandizement, in the
> >>>>form of making a bullshit "ethical" statement. The
> >>>>statement being made by an announcement of being
> >>>>"vegan" is bullshit; a lie.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>whether or not you think that veganism is ethically valid is not the
point
> >>>of this thread.
> >>
> >>Now it is.
> >>
> >
> > hmmm...no...i don't see that on the menu ()
>
> Yet still it's there...
>
all this talk of menus and tables is making me hungry ()
> >
> >>>>>certainly, the whole vegan thing has had a
> >>>>>trendy band wagon thing going on lately, probably because of all
these
> >>>>>hollywood folks popping out of the vegan woodwork.
> >>>>
> >>>>It was there long before Hollywood got hold of it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>yes, i am well aware of that. i'm talking about the trend that has
been
> >>>happening lately. famous folks get their diets splattered all over the
> >>>media. 'ooh, madonna's vegan! ooh, moby's vegan! wow, that guy who
played
> >>>spiderman has all these big muscles but he doesn't eat meat! wow, did
you
> >>>hear what alecia silverstone has catered to her movie sets? all that
weird
> >>>vegan food!'
> >>
> >>How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
> >>to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
> >>preferences of the Hollywood crowd...
> >
> >
> > dude, i haven't been living under a rock. have you?
>
> I don't live under a rock, and I have no ****ING clue
> what Hollywood starlets eat and don't eat. I tend to
> pay attention to important things like the war on
> terrorism and the trade deficit and the offshore
> outsourcing of information technology jobs, not fatuous
> National Enquirer-type shit about what movie starlets
> do and don't eat.
>
unfortunately, this kindof stuff ain't in the enquirer. it's right there in
the mainstream media. i don't know why there's so much focus on famous
folks. people put bloody celebrity arrests on the front page, and genocide
gets a little mention on the back page. somehow, even not giving a shit, i
wind up hearing about stuff that doesn't matter.

katie wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>katie wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>>i feel that some labels are useful, but that some are superfluous.
>>>>
>>>>You have no standard for deciding which are which.
>>>
>>>
>>>holy tofu man. i keep on telling you what my standard is. i consider the
>>>'vegan' label to be useful because it tells people what you don't eat.
>>
>>That's a totally arbitrary and ad hoc determination of
>>what's "useful". There is no standard. You like that
>>label because YOU use it.
>
>
> you asked for MY standard. that is what MY standard is. i didn't claim
> that it was THE standard.

It isn't a "standard" at all, it's purely ad hoc.


>>>>>i think that having too many labels can get a
>>>>>little nutty.
>>>>
>>>>Just so long as the label you like to apply to yourself
>>>>is seen as 'useful'. RIIIIIIIGHT.
>>>
>>>
>>>if it is useful to me, (and it is) what's the problem with me using it?
>>
>>By itself, nothing. The problem is with you
>>denigrating a label someone ELSE finds useful, and your
>>reason for denigrating it. It isn't because you don't
>>find the new label useful; it's because you DO think it
>>somehow detracts from the attractiveness of the label
>>you use for yourself.
>>
>
> i don't think it 'detracts from the attractiveness' of my 'label.' i think
> that people who call themselves vegan and then eat steak are the ones
> screwing with the vegan label.

There is no evidence of ANYONE calling himself "vegan"
and then eating meat. The "flexitarian" label was
applied to health-oriented vegetarians, not "vegans".

>
>>>>>i mean, we've got what now, carnivore, omnivore, herbivore,
>>>>>right?
>>>>
>>>>No. No humans are herbivores.
>>>
>>>
>>>humans who exist on plant foods only are herbivores.
>>
>>False. You are completely wrong. No humans are
>>herbivores. Cows are herbivores. See if you can
>>figure out what "herbivores" really means.
>
>
> herbivore /n. an animal that feeds on plants.
> humans are animals.
> vegans are humans that feed on plants.

An herbivore is one that feeds on primarily on grasses,
and exclusively on the green parts of plants. That
excludes those who eat fruit and the seed-bearing parts
of vegetables like squash and eggplant.

>
>>>you may not believe
>>>that they are herbivores physiologically, and that is fine. but in
>>> terms of what they eat, observationally, they are herbivores.
>>
>>Wrong. You are completely and utterly wrong. Look it up.
>
>
> see above.

It is a common dictionary definition, not a zoology
definition.


>>>>>this thread isn't about whether or not you think veganism is 'all wrong'
>
>>>>My participation here is based on my belief that it's
>>>>all wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>then perhaps you have gotten lost.
>>
>>I am not lost. I know exactly where I am, and why I'm
>>here.
>>
>>
>>>this is a vegan FOOD board.
>>
>>Then what the **** was that guy doing inquiring about
>>CAR WAX?
>>
>
> i'd say he figured that if anyone knew where to find vegan car wax, it would
> be a group of vegans.

That doesn't get you round your observation to me that
this is a "'vegan' FOOD board".

>
>
>>>not a debating-the-merits-of-veganism board.
>>
>>It's that, too. Now, at least.
>>
>
> if you want a vegan debate board, why not just make one?

Can't be bothered.

> this one is
> supposed to be about vegan food. you know, good, friendly, recipes and
> stuff.

Oh, well.


>>>>>and 'just not eating the beef' isn't a viable option at many, if not
>>>>>most, family dinners.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>okay, you can just not eat the beef. you will still have family members
>>>that are left confused and with hurt feelings that you did not eat their
>>>beef.
>>
>>How in the **** does giving some stupid label do
>>anything to assuage their hurt feelings?!
>
>
> personally, i think that just refusing it and saying nothing will hurt their
> feelings more.

"I don't care for meat."

> cause they might think that you think there's something
> wrong with their cooking or something, and feel bad about themselves. but
> if it's because of some choice you've made, they don't have to feel so bad,
> since they can say 'hey, my cooking is awesome, you're just a crackpot'
>
>>>and they will harp and you for the entire time.
>>
>>A little defensive about your choice, are you?
>
>
> i am not defensive about my choice, even in the face of people 'egging' me
> on, and trying to draw me into debates about my lifestyle choices. but that
> doesn't change the fact that my family does like to harp at me about food,
> among just about everything else. that's just how they are. i've learned
> to not take the bait.
>
[...]
>>>>Maybe you ought to reconsider the specious reasoning
>>>>that led you to declare yourself "vegan".
>>>
>>>
>>>hmm...no, i like my lifestyle just fine, thank you. i feel much healthier.
>
>>It may be, but not because of eschewing *all* meat.
>>That's a bogus ethical choice, not a health choice.
>>
>
> not eating any meat is a health choice for some people.

Being "vegan" is not a health choice for anyone, it's a
bogus "ethical" choice.


>>>>>>It seems to me you're resentful over what you must see
>>>>>>as some degradation of the cachet of the label "vegan".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>i wouldn't say resentful.
>>>>
>>>>I would,
>>>
>>>i wouldn't ()
>>
>>I would, and I know what I'm talking about.
>
>
> nehh...seeing as how you only 'know' me from this discussion board, i don't
> really think that you do know what you're talking about.
> especially when i've already said that i think the flexitarian thing could
> turn out to be a good thing.
>
>>>>but you can give it whatever label you like.
>>>
>>>>The point is, it BUGS you that others are using a label
>>>>that you feel in some way detracts from the cachet of
>>>>the label you like to use for yourself. So, we see
>>>>that your allegedly "ethical" underpinnings for your
>>>>dietary choice have nothing to do with ethics at all,
>>>>but are purely about your image, both self-image and
>>>>the image you want to present to others.
>>>>
>>>
>>>i'm sure that every human being's lifestyle choices are to some extent
>>>influenced by image.
>>
>>Projection.
>
>
> psychology.

Psychological projection. You are projecting your
attitudes onto others.

>
>>>everyone has to deal with their self-image and the
>>>image they want to present to others.
>>
>>"vegans" obsess over it.
>
>
> no more than anyone else.

Much more.

>
>>>but i wouldn't say that it is
>>>anywhere near the pure motivations for all vegans.
>>
>>Some external projection of an "ethical" image is the
>>only motivation for being "vegan".
>>
>
> not the only motivation.

THE ONLY motivation.

>
>
>>>really man, you have to pick an argument. either we don't understand our
>>>own lifestyle because it is based on inherently flawed moral beliefs, or
>>>we're in it just for the image. it can't be both.
>>
>>Of course it can. Don't be a dope. "vegan" seize upon
>>a fatally flawed "ethical" belief as a way of
>>projecting an image of being "virtuous".
>
>
> i maintain that if they're in it 'just for the image' they don't really give
> a damn about the ethics.

They don't give a damn about any *real* ethics. They
care about projecting a supposedly superior ethical image.


>>>if you're in it just for
>>>the image, you don't give a shit about ethics.
>>
>>They don't. Not really; they couldn't and cling to a
>>demonstrably bogus ethics.
>
>
> i'm sure that bandwagoners would have no problem with doing that.
>
>>>if you're in it just for the
>>>ethics as you perceive them,
>>
>>No one is. It's the ethics as they want to present to
>>others: an easy, bogus ethics that stupidly focuses
>>purely on a RULE - "don't consume animal parts" -
>>rather than any principle. There is no principle
>>whatever behind "veganism".
>
>
> emphasis on 'how you perceive them'

No. There is no principle, only a silly consumption rule.

>
>>>that, and not image, is your motivation. at
>>>least be consistent in your accusations.
>>
>>I am.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
>>>>>thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
>>>>>vegan eats sausages because they like them.
>>>>
>>>>There was no suggestion in the article that the people
>>>>who are 'flexitarians' originated as "vegans". In
>>>>fact, it explicitly said that they are vegetarian, or
>>>>vegetarian-leaning, for health concerns, *not* due to
>>>>belief in "animal rights".
>>>
>>>
>>>who said they 'originated as vegans?'
>>
>>You just wrote above about "vegans" being portrayed as
>>liking sausages. You didn't say "vegetarian", you said
>>"vegan". YOU obviously want to believe the article was
>>about "vegans", i.e., those who consider themselves
>>so-called - but misnamed - "ethical" vegetarians. You
>>are wrong. The article makes plain that they are
>>health-oriented vegetarians, who quite rightly
>>recognize that some occasional meat in the diet doesn't
>>negatively impact health.
>>
>
> i think this vegan/vegetarian thing is a bit nitpicky. neither eat
> sausages. both the vegetarian and vegan food labels could be screwed up if
> either run around eating sausages.

Don't be a ninny.

>
>
>>Anyway, you also made clear that it is damage to *your*
>>preferred label that is your only concern.
>>
>
> if it results in vegans getting served animal products, yes, it would
> concern me. i really can't see any other reason for concern about this
> label.

It isn't concern with what you're served, it's concern
with how you're perceived. Image, in other words.

>
>
>>>someone who eats sausage isn't a
>>>vegan in the first place. and i know that the article is talking about
>>>vegetarians, but i was merely pointing out that a lot of vegans seem to have
>>>come across people who call themselves vegans, but who still eat animal
>>>products sometimes.
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
>
> how would you know? you're not a vegan.

No one who eats meat sausage is going around calling
himself "vegan".

>
>>>>Anyway, you have further confirmed that this is an
>>>>*image* thing for you, not any kind of moral commitment.
>>>
>>>
>>>i don't see how my getting annoyed at the prospect of people calling
>>>themselves vegan who eat animal products
>>
>>You've created a red herring.
>
>
> i really don't see that.

Because there is no one calling himself "vegan" who is
also eating meat sausages.

> i'm talking in general about people who use veg*n

Oh, now you've changed the word! Before it was
explicitly "vegan"; now you're writing this even worse
atrocity "veg*n", which absolutely is NOT a word.

> labels but don't conform to them.
>
>>>and thereby confuse the omni
>>>population as to what vegans eat, making it more difficult for me to find
>>>vegan food that is really vegan, at all confirms this as an 'image' thing.
>
>>Oh, come on!
>>
>
> obviously, what with you not being vegan, you haven't encountered this
> difficulty. it does sound absurd, but you'd be suprised how people get
> these labels screwed up.
>
>
>>>>>but like i said in my earlier
>>>>>post, i think the flexitarian label could be a good thing in that respect,
>>>>>since then those people might stop calling themselves vegetarians and
>>>>>wouldn't cause that kind of confusion.
>>>>
>>>>There isn't really any confusion. One is either
>>>>vegetarian, or not. There is no such thing as a
>>>>"lacto-ovo" vegetarian, for example. Dairy and eggs
>>>>are animal products. If you eat them, you're not
>>>>vegetarian.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the word vegetarian originally applied to vegetarians who ate dairy and
>>>eggs. the word vegan was invented to differentiate those vegetarians who
>>>didn't eat dairy and eggs,
>>
>>Wrong. The horrible word "vegan" - it's just a
>>godawful word, not really a word at all - was coined to
>>describe people who didn't consume *any* animal
>>products at all, and not only in their food. They
>>didn't and don't wear leather, wool, eat honey, use
>>products containing lanolin, and so on.
>
>
> okay, i got eggs, dairy, and useage of animal products. i forgot to mention
> food useage of animal products. pardon me.

A "vegan" is some nitwit who doesn't use any animal
products; that's the definition of the wretched word.
A vegetarian is someone who doesn't EAT any animal
products, but doesn't apply it to other consumables.
It's that simple.

If one eats dairy and eggs, one isn't vegetarian, and
one sure as hell isn't "vegan", and everyone knows it.

>
>>>and all that useage of animal products stuff.
>>>then you had vegetarians who didn't eat dairy or eggs, but who still wore
>>>leather. those are strict vegetarians. so to differentiate themselves from
>>>the strict vegetarians, someone probably tacked on the lacto-ovo part.
>>>those who eat eggs and dairy are vegetarian.
>>
>>Those who eat eggs and dairy are NOT vegetarian. I
>>don't give a **** what they want to call themselves.
>>Eggs and dairy are not vegetarian, period.
>>
>
> strangely enough, eggs and dairy have always been considered to be
> vegetarian.

No, they haven't. Not by anyone with even a slight
knowledge of nutrition. I don't care what rule-bending
and word-mangling people have tried to do, vegetarian
means eating only fruits, vegetables (including grains,
tubers and legumes) and mushrooms. Period.

Anyone using these disgusting neologisms of
"lacto-ovo", "pesco-" and so on are merely trying to
seize the imagined cachet of "vegetarian", without
really giving up meat.


>>>>Your whole motivation for not eating meat to begin with
>>>>is bogus.
>>>
>>>
>>>i don't see how. there are many reasons why i don't eat meat. one of the
>>>main ones is for health reasons. i feel great eating like this. that
>>>certainly isn't bogus.
>>
>>To the extent any of it is based on supposed ethics,
>>it's bogus. There is no principle behind it.
>>"veganism" is usually taken as synonymous with
>>so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, and so-called
>>"ethical" vegetarianism is a principle-free
>>monstrosity. It is PURELY about obeying a consumption
>>rule, NOT about any moral principle.
>>
>
> whether or not you feel that the moral principle is valid, most people do
> become vegans partly taking into account some moral principle.

No, it isn't based on any principle at all, or else
they wouldn't seize on an inadequate consumption rule
as the basis for their claim to superior morality.
There is no principle; there is only blind obedience of
a stupid rule. Following a rule is not the same as
abiding by a principle, and any ethically knowledgeable
person knows the difference.


>>>>>some of us actually apply the label to describe our
>>>>>dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
>>>>
>>>>No. No one is "vegan" for any practical purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>whether or not you think that people are vegan for practical purposes,
>>>people actually do become vegan believing that it has practical purpose.
>>
>>They think it has ethical import, and it doesn't; well,
>>no ethical import other than showing moral confusion on
>>the part of the adherents.
>
>
> people adhere to all kinds of different moral values, many with very
> disputed validity.

Following a rule is not by itself being ethical, but
following a consumption rule is ALL that distinguishes
"vegans".


>>>>No, the purpose of declaring oneself "vegan" in the
>>>>first place is self aggrandizement.
>>>
>>>
>>>not at all.
>>
>>Completely.
>
>
> why would you think that? most people who go vegan just don't want to
> exploit animals, i think.

You're getting close to the nub of the problem. How on
EARTH is not putting animal parts in your mouth in some
way not "exploiting" animals? What about the countless
animals killed in the course of producing fruits and
vegetables that the "vegans" DON'T put in their mouths?
What about the exploitation of them? Have you never
heard the expression "collateral animal deaths in
agriculture"?

>
>>>people who declare themselves vegan usually do so because they
>>>have discovered how animals are treated in factory farming and animal
>>>testing etc., and rather than the 'man-ruling-earth-and-nature' outlook that
>>>western society holds, they are humbled, and want to help in any small way
>>>that they can.
>>
>>So they elect to follow purely a consumption *rule*,
>>one that has no ethical principle behind it whatever.
>>There is no ethical principle behind "veganism"; none
>>whatever.
>>
>
> there is an ethical principle behind it, whether or not you believe it is a
> valid one.

There is none. There is only blindly following a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts." That
embodies no principle at all, but that's ALL "veganism" is.



>>>>How is it YOU know all about this, HMMMMMMMMMM? Seems
>>>>to me you're AWFULLY well attuned to the dietary
>>>>preferences of the Hollywood crowd...
>>>
>>>
>>>dude, i haven't been living under a rock. have you?
>>
>>I don't live under a rock, and I have no ****ING clue
>>what Hollywood starlets eat and don't eat. I tend to
>>pay attention to important things like the war on
>>terrorism and the trade deficit and the offshore
>>outsourcing of information technology jobs, not fatuous
>>National Enquirer-type shit about what movie starlets
>>do and don't eat.
>>
>
> unfortunately, this kindof stuff ain't in the enquirer. it's right there in
> the mainstream media.

Serious people don't read it, nor watch anything about
it on television.

> i don't know why there's so much focus on famous
> folks. people put bloody celebrity arrests on the front page, and genocide
> gets a little mention on the back page. somehow, even not giving a shit, i
> wind up hearing about stuff that doesn't matter.
>
>

"katie" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> man, i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
> having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
> labels?

It can be useful to companies who market food to know that there is a large
demand for things like meat substitutes, soy products like tofu and soy
milk, vegetarian frozen dinners, etc. and what kind of people are creating
that demand. Apparently most of the demand comes not from vegetarians but
from "flexitarians."

This is similar to the marketing language that refers to preteens and young
teenagers with allowance money to blow as "tweens." (Though they didn't coin
that word).

>flexitarians are omnivores. you should have a word for your
> dietary style if you don't eat something, to let people know. but
> flexitarians will eat anything at all, they just choose the circumstances
> under which they will eat certain things. what good does it do to tell
> someone you're a flexitarian?

I agree with you that it's not a very useful label personally, but it does
help explain a growing phenomena. There are a lot of people who do eat some
meat but are cutting back on their portions of meat, and transferring those
meals to other products that they see as healthier.

> that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
> of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
> hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm flexible.'

That's not necessarily true. One form of flexitarian might be someone who
eats vegetarian or vegan food for most days of the year and eats turkey or
ham and deviled eggs at Thanksgiving and/or Christmas. It wouldn't be "ok"
for someone to serve those people meat unless it was a special occasion that
called for it. Other flexitarians may just be having fun exploring
vegetarian food and will go back to eating meat after a short while, but in
the mean time don't want any meat. Other flexitarians may be going on the
diet for specific (instead of general) health reasons and won't eat meat or
accept it unless it's in small quantities every now and then.

The term is pretty broad and that's why it's not very useful for people to
say about themselves but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're so
flexible that they'll just eat anything, any time.

> that's like just being an omnivore. you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.

It depends on how much of a percentage of meat they allow into their diet.

> the term flexitarian is superfluous, and just another 'catch word' for
> people to hop on some trendy assed band wagon or feel like they eat more
> healthily.

Cutting out excess meat is eating healthier provided that what they replace
it with is healthier than the meat.

-Rubystars

skatie wrote:
<..>
> i don't know how they make their food choices when they are choosing to eat
> animal products.

Hint: They usually eat vegetarian for health reasons. Their consumption of meat
is usually consistent with their diet, hence their consumption of leaner cuts.
Meat, whether you like it or not, remains the best source of B12, iron, and zinc
in the human diet.

> all i'm saying is that some folks who are veg*n 'most of
> the time' eat animal products out of convenience, craving, pressure from
> others (ie family dynamics, not wanting to be a 'burden,' friends 'egging'
> you on - no pun intended), that kind of stuff

That's probably also true of flexitarians. Why should motive matter?

<...>
>>Is "part time vegetarian" more acceptable to you?
>
> ehh...i don't know...i know some folks call themselves 'semi-vegetarians.'
> i don't really dig that.

Why not?

> like i said, i just don't think that this is one
> of those things that needs a label. especially if they're doing it for
> health.

For what reason or reasons would you think a label is acceptable?

> it's easier to turn down grandma's home cooked whatnot if you say
> that you're trying to not eat whatnot for health reasons. why not just say
> 'i try to eat vegetarian most of the time'?

I think you need to re-read the article. Flexitarians aren't hung up on food (or
car wax!) the way vegans are.

<...>
>>Do you need "vegan" to distinguish yourself from "vegetarian"?
>
> yeah, because vegetarian generally means lacto-ovo,

No, it doesn't. It *includes* that, but it doesn't *mean* that. I call myself
vegetarian, and I consume no eggs or dairy.

> whereas
> strict-vegetarian, the same as the new and equally superfluous word
> 'vegitan' is no animal products at all. those are just a way of eating.

They're still valid descriptions and labels.

> but vegan is generally viewed as more of a lifestyle, encompassing not only
> a strict vegetarian diet but also an aversion to the use of animal products
> in other applications and to all or unneccessary animal testing.

I'm glad you used the word "aversion." Now we just have to get you to admit that
the aversion is extreme and irrational.

<...>>>then again, if people calling themselves flexitarian means that no one
> will
>>>every try to feed a vegan chicken again, since they won't have seen this
>>>'vegan' chowing down on chicken wings *shudder* then hey, it could be a
> good
>>>thing.
>>
>>Why?
>
> because it's really a pain in the ass to have someone assuming like vegans
> eat chicken or some other animal part just because they saw some 'vegan' do
> it before.

Do you realize they consider you the pain in the ass for being a complete
ingrate about their hospitality?

> then you get the whole "you're vegan? do you eat fish? no?
> cause my friend so and so is a vegan but she eats fish sometimes...how about
> eggs?' and so on. it's even worse when people just assume it without asking
> and then serve you a 'vegan' dish coated with cheese or made with beef stock
> or something.

Only eat what you cook yourself. That makes it easy.

> then you have to find a way to turn it down without feeling
> like a total ass.

You don't HAVE to turn it down, drama queen, nor do you have to feel like an ass
for saying something like "Thanks, but I'm not very hungry" or simply "No, but
thanks."

> it's not only inconvenient, but also very socially
> awkward.

I'll agree with you that veganism is awkward.

skatie wrote:
<...>
>>Your gran has every right to be concerned about your eating disorder. You
> could
>>be gracious and either eat her meat or not, but you choose instead to make
> a
>>scene about it, drama queen.
>
> very funny. i know that you know that veganism is not an eating disorder.

It is an eating disorder, characterized by irrational aversions and
pseudo-religious axioms about avoiding animal parts. The dogma of avoiding
animal parts becomes silly when you avoid things containing a tiny bit of an
ingredient which comes from an animal, particularly when you have no organic
defect (e.g. a reaction or an allergy) to such an ingredient.

> i don't make any kind of scene, and my post above wouldn't give that
> impression.

Sounds like you do, especially when you call it a "pain in the ass" to explain
your irrational aversion to food.

> people notice when you 'graciously' don't eat something.
> especially family.

Yes, it's called "concern." Be grateful they care.

<...>
<...>
>>>from the article: 'I really like sausage'
>>
>>That isn't at odds with being mostly vegetarian. Take a look in your
> grocery
>>store and find the soy sausages. Why do veg-ns buy those things if sausage
> isn't
>>consistent with a veg-n diet? (Why do they crave such products anyway if
> animal
>>flesh is "gross"?! Hypocrites!)
>
> it is completely normal to crave animal products when you were raised with
> them.

Why do Hindus like them, then?

> especially when such food is associated with family gatherings and
> holidays and good times and bonding with others. thinking that animal flesh
> is gross, and eating something that fills their psychological, aesthetic,
> and taste food needs but is not made of animal flesh, is not gross.

What's the difference, particularly with the realistic soy and gluten products
on the market today? People are buying those, and vegans are right there at the
front of the line.
> you will also find that a lot of vegans aren't into the fake meat products.

Bullshit. Quite the contrary. Note the recent threads in this group lamenting
that Quorn contains egg whites, or that such-and-such product has lanolin
(unfounded). Such topics recur here.

> i'm certainly not. if they taste too much like 'gross flesh', it does
> seriously gross me out. i don't like any of that vegan ground beef or super
> meaty stuff. but hey, i do like veggie dogs and burgers.

Hypocrite.

> great convenience
> factor, conventional - good for sharing with friends and family, and not
> terribly 'meaty' tasting.

Veggie dogs don't remind you of hot dogs?

<...>
>>>i wouldn't say resentful. but i wouldn't be a happy camper if someone
>>>thought that vegans ate sausages just cause someone who calls themselves
>>>vegan eats sausages because they like them.
>>
>>You little ****. Look at all the fake sausages sold to veg-ns to cater to
> their
>>TASTES and their aesthetics. Why do veg-ns buy such products?
>
> i seriously do not see a need for the name-calling and nastiness.

I haven't gotten nasty. Yet.

> are you here to discuss,

Yes. Answer my questions.

> or just to be mean to people anonymously?

Answer the question. Why do veg-ns buy such *realistic* products?

>>http://www.thesoydailyclub.com/groce...usageAisle.asp
>>
>>Veg-ns seem to like sausages, too.
>
> if they eat SOY sausages, they're vegan. if they eat intestines stuffed
> with ground up animals, they aren't vegan. there's nothing wrong with
> eating something that tastes like something else if you like it.

What's the difference between the kind(s) of sausage people eat? They taste the
same, smell the same, look the same, have the same mouthfeel and texture, and
have the same appearance. Why is one yucky and the other not?

<...>
<...>
>>Drama queen.
>
> i don't see any drama queen component to that post. i think i'm allowed a
> little sarcasm when someone repeatedly insists that i have a 'weird
> compulsion to tell people i don't eat meat.'

You cause scenes about food. You're a drama queen.

>>>>It's hopping on a trendy bandwagon. Therefore, it is
>>>>by definition superfluous.
>>>
>>>not everyone who calls themselves vegan does so for the sake of
>>>bandwagon-hopping. some of us actually apply the label to describe our
>>>dietary and lifestyle choices for practical purposes.
>>
>>It's a fad. Welcome to the bandwagon, keep your hands and feet inside.
>
> i doubt it.

It's a fad.

> some folks stick to this for life.

FEW do, most revert to old habits or more realistic ways of relating to food.
Hence the rise of the flexitarian. I think you'll find more ex-vegan
flexitarians than you'll find current vegans.

> some folks just stay for the bandwagon ride.

Most people who try to eat vegan revert to vegetarianism or more flexitarian
ways. The number of ex-vegans is always greater than the number of current ones.

>>>i believe that the instances where i top post is just fine.
>>
>>ARE fine. They're NOT.
>
> what are you, the posting police?

No, just someone who appreciates good netiquette.

skatie wrote:
<...>
>>>i read that on the veganism board at vegsource, and folks there were
>>>having a heyday with it! honestly, why the heck do we need all these
>>>labels?
>>
>>Do you include "vegan" among "all these labels"?
>
> i already went over all of this with our dear friend jonathan ball. why not
> do some background reading?

I hadn't read your response(s) yet. You haven't answered him about your standard
for determining what's a good label and what's a superfluous one.

<...>
> ehh...i agree that it's good to know why people do what they do. i don't
> know that the comparison to vegan and vegetarian is valid.

It is. Flexitarian is part of a continuum, and while it's on the other side of
the spectrum from vegan, it's main feature is a generally vegetarian diet with
occasional consumption of meat.

> vegetarians are primarily health-oriented

So you say. I know plenty of vegetarians who are obese. I know plenty of
vegetarians who like sugary, fatty foods. Read most of the recipes in this ng's
archive.

> and who knows what (or nothing) secondarily oriented.

Trendiness, peer pressure, etc.

> vegans are motivated by a whole bunch of different things.

Yes, irrational aversions. Mental deficiencies. Etc.

> health can still be a primary motivation for them.

The fatty, sugary recipes in this group and in other vegan sources tends to show
otherwise. A certain serial copyright violator in this group once chided me for
requesting healthier recipes.

> and there isn't any flexibility to either category.

Such forms of rigid extremism (aka fundamentalism) is a trait shared by others
with mental illness.

> vegetarians usually aren't vegans who
> occasionally eat eggs, dairy, gelatin and animal by-products and who
> occasionally use animal products and stuff tested on animals.

You buy and use stuff that's been tested on animals on a daily basis. Do you
drive a car? Animals have been killed in car safety tests for your safety. Be
grateful.

<...>
>>>but flexitarians will eat anything at all,
>>
>>No, not anything at all. Flexitarians make healthier choices. They're not
>>seeking fried chicken or pork rinds.
>
> depends on why someone calls themselves a flexitarian.

Someone calls himself a flexitarian OR people call themselves flexitarians. The
terms is used primarily by dieticians and other researchers.

> if they truly follow this 'healthy eating' definition, then yes.

That's the gist of it. Their motivation for food is health, not pseudo-religious
dogma about avoiding animal parts. They also acknowledge their desire for meat
on occasion, and eat the real thing rather than substitutes. Remember that when
you eat your next phony hot dog: other people aren't so driven by irrational
aversions that they can eat the real thing every now and then.

>>>they just choose the circumstances
>>>under which they will eat certain things.
>>
>>Their choices center on their health. That's more honest and legitimate
> than
>>specious claims about saving animals or being "cruelty-free."
>
> if the 'choices centre on health' thing does actually wind up being the
> definition.

Re-read the article.

> i have a feeling that this one will be used as a 'i just eat
> anything animal sometimes.' enter the fried chicken and pork rinds.

If they eat pork rinds only on occasion, why worry? Why would someone eat a
primarily vegetarian diet in the first place if they have no irrational aversion
for meat or other "animal parts"?

>>>what good does it do to tell
>>>someone you're a flexitarian?
>>
>>I don't see that many people call themselves that, rather it's a label
> used by
>>dieticians to describe that group of health-conscious consumers. Many
>>flexitarians call themselves "vegetarian" or "kind of vegetarian."
>
> that's why i think it might be beneficial, if they call themselves
> flexitarian rather than vegetarian.

Make up your mind.

>>>that's like saying, 'i eat a certain way some
>>>of the time, but another way whever it suits me, so feed me whatever the
>>>hell you want cause there's no way i'll turn it down cause i'm
> flexible.'
>
>>You should re-read the article.
>
> i'm not going purely on the article here.

OBVIOUSLY.

> we've all just met these folks
> who call themselves vegetarians or vegans but eat outside of that sometimes,
> for different reasons (including convenience), and i think that those are
> the folks who will wind up with this label.

Exactly. So?

>>>that's like just being an omnivore.
>>
>>No, it isn't -- no more than a vegan is just being a vegetarian.
>
> omnivores eat both animal products and vegetable products. flexitarians
> also eat both.

On occasion. Their diets are generally vegetarian, but not rigidly so.

>>>you're a bloody perfect dinner guest.
>>
>>Unlike pain-in-the-arse vegans who inquire about every ****ing ingredient
> and
>>every ****ing souce of ingredients.
>
> exactly. that's why some people crack.

Hosts or guests?

> because they feel bad about eating
> differently and being a burden on others.

They can go with the flow for one meal or weekend. It won't hurt them.

> it's very easy to feed vegans,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! !!

> but people get the idea like it's some big, difficult task.

Yes, when they prate about not wanting rotting flesh or when they inquire about
the source of every freaking ingredient. Ask your grandmother, and then ask her
again with the qualification that she be honest the second time.

<...>
> as i said to jonothan ball, i will top-wherever i feel it is appropriate.

Bottom post instead.

<...>
> ps: i really don't know why you keep calling me girly-girl.

Because you're a Katie instead of a Kate.

> not that it
> matters, but i'm female...but not terribly girly.

Okay, Kate.

> and what's with always
> adding an 's' to my name? skatie? i can't skate!

Don't sell yourself short. You're doing a fine job of skating around the issues.

Rubystars wrote:
<..>
> The term is pretty broad

That's what the "flexible" part of flexitarian is supposed to convey. It's a
catch-all for healthy, mostly vegetarian folks who aren't constrained by some
rigid food orthodoxy.

> and that's why it's not very useful for people to
> say about themselves but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're so
> flexible that they'll just eat anything, any time.

I don't expect many people to adopt it for themselves over other ones, but I
think it's a useful description for dieticians and researchers.

<...>

usual suspect wrote:

> Rubystars wrote:
> <..>
>
>> The term is pretty broad
>
>
> That's what the "flexible" part of flexitarian is supposed to convey.
> It's a catch-all for healthy, mostly vegetarian folks who aren't
> constrained by some rigid food orthodoxy.

I somewhat agree with Katie on the initial sound of the
label, but I have to say I like the nutritional
approach of it a lot, for exactly the reason you
describe. While purely health-oriented but still
strict vegetarians don't have the unpleasant dogma and
political baggage of "vegans", there nonetheless is a
rather grating quality to their insistence that NO meat
can be eaten. In fact, when it's that extreme, I begin
to wonder if there isn't some "ar" sentiment that they
harbor but don't want to express, so they conceal it
under an overriding concern for health.

Even if it is strictly for health reasons, health
extremists, while not necessarily looking to impose a
fascistic regime on the rest of us the way "aras" are
looking to do, are still very unpleasant people. That
applies to anyone who follows a rigid orthodoxy.

>
>> and that's why it's not very useful for people to
>> say about themselves but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're so
>> flexible that they'll just eat anything, any time.
>
>
> I don't expect many people to adopt it for themselves over other ones,
> but I think it's a useful description for dieticians and researchers.
>
> <...>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Even if it is strictly for health reasons, health
> extremists, while not necessarily looking to impose a
> fascistic regime on the rest of us the way "aras" are
> looking to do, are still very unpleasant people. That
> applies to anyone who follows a rigid orthodoxy.
>
> >

ALL extremists should be shot!

"William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:0ir8c.1603$gA5.33766@attbi_s03...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > Even if it is strictly for health reasons, health
> > extremists, while not necessarily looking to impose a
> > fascistic regime on the rest of us the way "aras" are
> > looking to do, are still very unpleasant people. That
> > applies to anyone who follows a rigid orthodoxy.
> >
> > >
>
> ALL extremists should be shot!
>
() good one