HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

Discussion

John Thorne and vegetarianism

  • v
  • 4

"Dear Irked, smug condescension is my middle name. That means we may be long-lost siblings!"

Hmmm... could very well be. I think my dad got around a bit in his youth, but that's neither here nor there.

"the marginalization corrupts the marginalized as well as those doing the marginalization. Only the marginalized take the brunt of it and pay a stiff price. And if this isn’t sad, I don’t know what is."

I don't agree at all. I don't think that it works that way. Without even going into the suffering of the food animals (who REALLY take the brunt of the burden where meat is concerned) I think you've defined the meat/no-meat decision societally rather than individually -- and it's on the individual level that people make these decisions. It doesn't matter what the underlying motivation, really. One makes a cost/benefit analysis: is eating this meat going to bring me enough pleasure to counteract the negative feelings associated with eating it? How you answer that is completely personal. Yeah, it sucks that my feelings lead me to make a sacrifice that others don't bother to make, and I really think the world would be nicer if everyone agreed with me. That's life. I don't drive an SUV either. My point is, that it would bother me to eat meat more than it would taste good. Whether that's sad or not depends on who you are, but I don't think it's fair to make judgements about other people's decisions. It's like saying that it's sad that some people attend church on Sunday and miss out on sleeping late or watching football. Or it's sad that some silly people scrimp and save to send their kids to college when they could have a nice car or a bigger house instead. It's all a trade-off and everyone has to choose what matters.

- VF

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. At this point, I think this discussion belongs in the NOT ABOUT FOOD section.

    3 Replies
    1. re: John Thorne

      LOL

      Going back to something you said on the New England board (which is what triggered this discussion...check ou the thread there called "Northampton/Amherst Area Dining...Another View"); I'm with you in wishing there were more veg options on menus. Not for vegetarians...I mean for the rest of us!

      I'm sick of having to choose between Heavy Food Blow-Out restaurants and veg restaurants. I want a choice of whole grains, GOOD vegetables, lighter dishes at the places I frequent. I don't want to have to head to some vegan ghetto and listen to Paul Winter noodling on the stereo and eat talentlessly cooked gunk everytime I crave a healthy bite. It's ridiculous!

      In a perfect world, we wouldn't NEED vegetarian restaurants. REAL restaurants would provide more alternatives. It's this gap that most pisses me off about the dining scene. It simply hasn't caught up with the way people eat.

      It used to be that people dined out mostly for special occasions, and the food was commensurately richer than the home cooking we ate the other 6 nights per week. Now there are more people who dine out as a lifestyle (hence this site), but the dining scene hasn't responded by giving us healthier, more everyday-worthy options; the option, in other words, to enjoy a dining out experience without clogging our arteries every single damned time.

      ciao

        1. re: John Thorne

          As usual, I think we can all agree with Jim on this one.

          - VF