I'm a vegitarian because I hate plants.

[jackofallgeeks]

So, over the weekend I went out to get my car's 10,000 miles maintenance done. We'll ignore for the moment that I'm managed to put 10,000 miles on my car in two months and instead focus on the TV show that was playing while I watched.

In particular, it was one of the myriad talkshows that are on mid-day during the week, and there was some actress or another from a recent B-horror movie. The 'interview' was rally shallow and short, but at one point the actress said she was afraid of spiders and killed them on reflex. This was notable because, she said, she was a vegetarian.
Which struck me as odd. I mean, she didn't eat the spider, she just killed it. This confusion was cleared up, though, when the host explained that being a vegetarian means you care about animals. Oh, OK; I always thought being a vegetarian meant you didn't eat meat.

Maybe it's just me but I find this glomming of terms and ideologies rather annoying. Never mind the fact that I, personally, think it's a rather dumb move to change one's diet -- that which the body uses to run and maintain itself -- just because you like kittens and puppies is a rather stupid idea. I think it's perfectly valid to be a vegetarian for health reasons: if you find a given diet is more or less beneficial to you, by all means act on that. But I don't think being a vegetarian is necessarily coupled with a driving sympathy for lesser species.

And it's a fallacy that's made on both sides of the fence. I know people who speak rather derisively of vegetarians, and make snap-judgments about people based on whether or not they order the Sirloin. Why? Because vegetarians must be bleeding-heart PETA fans who would sooner invite the family dog to the dinner table than a baby.
There's nothing wrong with sympathy for animals -- I love kittens as much as the next guy. and it's alright to want to ensure they're treated appropriately and not abused and that sort of stuff. It can go a bit overboard when you're dressing up Fido and giving him choice bits of filet mignon, but anything can get out of hand. What bothers me is the blind, knee-jerk pairing of ideologies and behaviors.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I think you may be being a bit harsh on folks who'd make the connection. Most folks (at least most folks I run into or see express their views in public fora) who are vegetarians are primarily because of animal welfare concerns. So a vegetarian who blithely killed insects, wore lots of leather, etc. would at least raise an eyebrow.

There are lots of times when there are multiple reasons why one might act in a particular way, yet there's still one dominant one - e.g., you'd probably be pretty surprised if I was pro-choice but then told you I told my wife to quit her job and get in the kitchen - most people who are pro-choice are because of women's rights concerns. It's a reasonable inference.

Reasonable, perhapse, but still irritating.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I think it may be inherent to my nature to be harsh, but... That aside, I thinbk there's a difference between the disconnection you point out and the connection that I find irritating.

Being Pro-Choice and 'anti-women' (for lack of a better term to describe the behavior you present) might be pretty conflicting (though explainable if one were pro-Choice simply because they felt it was not the buisness of the government to be legislating on such an issue at all). I think it's less of a conflict for a vegitarian to wear leather and kill spiders, especially considering that the most direct reason to alter one's diet (admittedly I can only claim this as my opinion) is because you see some health benefit from it. There's nothing conflicting about being a Vegitarian and an animal-welfare advbocate; in fact they do compliment each other nicely. But I think it's irritating to necessarily assume the connection between them.

Simply an iritation, though, I'll note. I'll smirk sardonically and shake my head, but I'm not going to correct anyone on the street or write an editorial (unless, of course, you count my journal).

Re: Reasonable, perhapse, but still irritating.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Well, I understand that it might be the most *direct* reason, but I don't think health reasons are the most *common* reason to not eat meat. Most vegetarians I know (especially celebrity vegetarians?) cite animal rights concerns.

Re: Reasonable, perhapse, but still irritating.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Well, I would have to conceed that, yes. A further analysis (and critique) of why we do some of the things we do will have to come later.

I still think assumptions are irritating, though.
:p

[surichan.livejournal.com]

I still think assumptions are irritating, though.

They are, at that. Especially when you happen to be The One Vegetarian™ who isn't a vegetarian because of animal rights concerns.

I was very happy while reading this post. I kinda want to print it out and put it on my Cross-Cultural Psychology teacher's desk. He's always going on about how we need to be aware that while all humans have stereotypes, and to deny that we have them is to deny our very humanity, there are individual differences to be taken into account, and how we should avoid making snap judgments and assumptions. And yet this is the guy who hears that I'm a vegetarian and called me a "PETA person" twice in class. Because nooooo way can someone have just given up meat for health reasons; you also have to have ethical concerns about animals. >__<

Admittedly, a lot of people do seem to find it strange that I'm - "unconcerned" is the wrong word, but it's the first one that comes to mind - about animal rights and yet am a vegetarian; but I don't know why it's so purportedly strange. I mean, just because a person eats meat, that doesn't make them for the abuse of animals. I know lots of meat-eaters who don't think cows should be injected with hormones and fed old cow parts, and many others who don't agree with animal testing. And in just the same way, just because a person doesn't eat meat shouldn't automatically make them animal rights fanatics. Sure, show me the petition saying that animals shouldn't be tormented, and I'll sign it. Show me the person I'm eating dinner with ordering a steak, and I'll be utterly ambivalent - as long as there's something on the menu for me, that is. I do get annoyed at the carnivore-centrism of most restaurants, especially major chains.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-smirk-
You're exactly who I thought of when I saw said interview.

Veggytubbles

[xenu.livejournal.com]

When I became a vegetarian ten years ago, it was because I simply did not like meat. It wasn't until years afterward, as I learned (and am still learning!) of the ways that our food (animal and otherwise) is processed and treated before it gets to the supermarket, that I began to be concerned with the need for humane treatment of animals. Today, I am no longer a vegetarian, having discovered a previously unknown love for nearly all things seafood related (it was easy for me to give up fish when my knowledge of seafood consisted of fishsticks and not much else), but still am careful (as much as is financially possible) to make sure that the food that I eat comes to me via means that I find morally acceptable.
I would also like to add, however, that it is entirely possible to be a meat-eater and also be concerned with the welfare of animals. We are, after all, omnivorous by nature, and eating meat is a natural thing. The key, of course, is to be aware of where it is your meat comes from.

Remember that place Louis & I took you & Andrew for breakfast/lunch? Honey's is part of the Sustainable Business Network (http://www.sbnphiladelphia.org/), an organization which strives to help businesses to survive while also maintaining socially and ecologically sound practices. Buy Local Philly is part of their philosophy.

And now I will shut up, having said WAAAAAAAY too much.