19 May 2011

Why I'm Not A Vegetarian

(I've got a migraine and news consumption has been low so I thought I'd shoot this out there)

Vegetarianism. The principle (as I understand it from friends who choose this way of life) is that it is wrong to eat animals, whether because of moral grounds, theological grounds, tastes or some other idiopathic reason. Herbivorism if you please, which, as referred to in the Wikipedia link, is the consumption of plant substances.

I adore plant substances, but I am also quite a fan of meat. However, I am not such a fan as to become a carnivore.

Things that irk me about Vegetarians is their obscure and often hypocritical principles.

You will often find vegetarians who wear leather without a second thought, although it is not currently vogue to wear fur. They are generally lucky enough to get substitute jackets but shoes still tend to contain leather.

Therefore I find fault with their principles. I am a great admirer of those with the tenacity to pursue nothing but man-made substances. But as the cruelty of eating other live animals is the core reason for the majority of vegetarians, stop being so bloody hypocritical!

Don't even get me on to Pescatarians.

I'm quite principled. And I'm liberal enough to accept what people do, but I will be inclined to moan about hypocrites.

My own approach to eating meat is a principled one, I believe.

I eat animals where humans make use of the majority of the materials the animal produces in death. For example, a cow produces leather as well as meat, the internal organs are also consumed with offal feeding pets. Therefore eating cows is justified. As are pigs and sheep. But eating game is not. The majority of game meat is wasted, as are skins and internal organs.

It works both ways too. I wouldnt wear mink because we dont consume mink meat. I wear leather, and suede but not rabbit fur.

On a different note, I am vaguely amused by my vegetarian friend who seeks to eat meat at festivals on the basis if it can kill you as meat, it is still an animal.


  1. This bizarre post reveals much about the authors prejudices and poor reasoning. There are many reasons people don't eat meat; humanist arguments, advice from doctors, outbreaks of diseases, the use of growth hormones, the efficiency of production, etc; your post shows a complete lack of understanding regarding why people become vegetarian. Many vegetarians have other primary concerns other than the welfare of animals.

    Your definition is clearly wrong, it is not "The principle that it is wrong to eat animals", the dictionary tells us that it's "the principle or practice of excluding all meat and fish...from one's diet". These are completely different definitions and this fundamental misunderstanding of the subject that you're posting on has clearly contributed to your poor grasp of it.

    Vegetarians are doing fine for footwear, this market has grown exponentially over the past decade and you can buy vegetarians shoes now for a similar price to leather. Maybe some Macbeth's? http://macbethshop.com/index.cfm?page=category&categoryid=4 You're the first person I've seen mention substitute jackets; does this imply that you're concerned about not wearing leather jackets? Didn't they go out of fashion after the film Grease? Why would this be a consideration?!

    Back to the "logic"...by your reasoning, the reason you don't wear rabbit fur is because you don't like the taste of rabbit meat; yet many people do - so you're saying that the choice to kill another animal, and your "principles", hinge upon what you like the taste of? Since tastes are usually defined in the first 7 years of your life, you're implying that your ideology should be defined by the associations and imprints you were conditioned with as a child. Interesting concept.

    Also, your principles seem to give no consideration as to how the animal might be killed, so long as the end usage is efficent, in your opinion, the end justifies the means. This is clearly a pretty weird argument, and it doesn't take a genius to see what logically follows from such a strange set of parameters. Of course, by your logic whaling is justified, because they use nearly all of the whale, indeed, by your logic cannibalism is fine, as long as the victim is consumed and utilised properly! So, if I wear your entrails and make weapons from your bones, that's ok?

    ...and you call others hypocrites? At least they didn't create arguments that infer that eating each other is fine, as long as it's done efficiently.

  2. Ronald McDonald20 May 2011 at 21:09

    Dear anonymous as you have no idea what the term "exponential growth" means I will also assume that the rest of your rambling post is ill informed too.

  3. Hi Anonymous,
    Out of courtesy, as it wasnt clear, I have edited the post as my understanding of vegetarians is first hand of those I know personally rather than a wider study of the subject as a whole.
    However, it should be observed that your own prejudices and poor reasoning are just as prevalent in your response; along with as many striking generalisations as I am guilty of myself.
    If you do wish to cite a dictionary, please reference which one.
    To accuse me of having a fundemental misunderstanding of the subject is rather interesting, given I was a vegetarian for seven years, mainly out of peer pressure and popularist dumbing down, and express my views on the issue as a personal opinion and not as some sort of guide to vegetarianism, which you appear to have misinterpreted my post as.
    As for Vegetarians doing fine for footwear, while I am aware of a variety of brands that supply non-animal leather substitutes, they are as difficult to come by as lacto-free dairy products, and the majority of vegetarians I know do not wear them for this reason as well as predominately that they seem to miss the point of their convictions they seek to impress upon me at every other point.
    My reason for not wearing rabbit fur is not due to taste and I suggest you seek to understand the definition of correlation prior to making obscure links. My principle is that rabbits are not bred for meat and fur, and therefore the means of slaughter for one substance or the other results in the waste of the rest of the carcass. As indeed the slaughter of pheasants, deer and other game results in.
    I have to insist there is nothing supernatural about my argument, and I would argue my logic stems directly from my parameters.
    In theory, if humans and whales were bred purposively for consumption, then by this rationale, consuming them would be legitimate were all of the parts of the body used. Neither are, and both acts are illegal, and I do not put my apparently supernatural predilection towards both productive farming and omnivorous diet above the law.
    But thank you for commenting.
    Perhaps you would now like to comment on other issues such as the justification of animal consumption in non-western countries and how this fits with my theorum? Or the supposition that wastage is a negative act.


Hi, thanks for commenting. I moderate all comments before publishing, hence your comment will not appear immediately! But I will get to it sooner or later!