Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

flexitarians

Expand Messages
  • DJ Brook
    Some people, both on and off this list, have condemned flexitarians, calling them meaningless, omnivores, fakers, etc. Some vegans have also dismissed
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 1, 2011
      Some people, both on and off this list, have condemned flexitarians, calling them meaningless, omnivores, fakers, etc. Some vegans have also dismissed vegetarians as not being real vegetarians because they're not 100% vegan. I heartily disagree with this all-or-nothing approach, having said that it is both factually problematic and tactically foolish.

      There's now some more evidence to suggest that flexitarians are helping our movement, therefore reducing animal suffering, increasing their own health, and protecting our environment by demanding and eating less meat (e.g., meatless meals, Meatless Mondays, meatless mornings, meatless weekdays, not eating certain animals, not eating factory farmed meat, etc.).

      While there is obviously much room for improvement, as there is in all of us in a variety of ways, this development is a very good thing.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/ life-style/flexitarians- driving-global-move-away-from- meat-consumption-study- 2346860.html

      Peace,
      Dan


      Food for Thought---and Action http://brook.com/food

      Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters  http://brook.com/veg

      The Vegetarian Mitzvah  http://brook.com/jveg

      No Smoking?  http://brook.com/smoke

      DB's e-books:
      An Alef-Bet Kabalah:  http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1653
      Che Forever:  http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1662

      Julie's law blog:
      http://blog.ceb.com


    • Jeff Walsh
      How is calling a flexitarian an omnivore slanderous? It s literally the definition of the word. I don t see why a new term is needed for people who eat a
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 1, 2011
        How is calling a flexitarian an omnivore slanderous? It's literally the definition of the word. I don't see why a new term is needed for people who eat a higher percentage of one thing over another...

        That said, I'm more annoyed by butters:
        - I'm vegan, but I eat a little fish
        - I'm vegetarian, but I eat some pork, etc.

        On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:26 PM, DJ Brook wrote:

         

        Some people, both on and off this list, have condemned flexitarians, calling them meaningless, omnivores, fakers, etc. Some vegans have also dismissed vegetarians as not being real vegetarians because they're not 100% vegan. I heartily disagree with this all-or-nothing approach, having said that it is both factually problematic and tactically foolish.

        There's now some more evidence to suggest that flexitarians are helping our movement, therefore reducing animal suffering, increasing their own health, and protecting our environment by demanding and eating less meat (e.g., meatless meals, Meatless Mondays, meatless mornings, meatless weekdays, not eating certain animals, not eating factory farmed meat, etc.).

        While there is obviously much room for improvement, as there is in all of us in a variety of ways, this development is a very good thing.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/ life-style/flexitarians- driving-global-move-away-from- meat-consumption-study- 2346860.html

        Peace,
        Dan


        Food for Thought---and Action http://brook.com/food

        Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters  http://brook.com/veg

        The Vegetarian Mitzvah  http://brook.com/jveg

        No Smoking?  http://brook.com/smoke

        DB's e-books:
        An Alef-Bet Kabalah:  http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1653
        Che Forever:  http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1662

        Julie's law blog:
        http://blog.ceb.com



      • DJ Brook
        Wow, that was exactly the simplistic and self-defeating attitude I was referring to. You want this to be a so-called black and white issue, but few things are.
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 2, 2011
          Wow, that was exactly the simplistic and self-defeating attitude I was referring to. You want this to be a so-called black and white issue, but few things are. Witness the different denominations in religions, the different types of Democrats, and, yes, the continuum of eaters. It's not necessarily like being pregnant - either you are or you aren't - but even there it's also a matter of how far along one is.

          A flexitarian, while still technically an omnivore and shouldn't be referred to as a vegetarian or vegan (ironically, you give good examples of flexitarians at the end of your message), likely eats a lot less meat than a typical omnivore and, by definition, eats less meat than someone who eats it all the time. While you may have the luxury of not thinking it any different, it actually means less torture, less death, and less environmental destruction.

          Further, I believe that those who are conscious about food and are at least doing something about it are more likely to go further and do more than someone who isn't conscious about or interested in food issues.

          Additionally, without those food-conscious non-veg*ns, of which there are many more than us, we possibly wouldn't have any, and certainly wouldn't have as many, veg restaurants in town, as they are not staying afloat just because of us.

          Peace,
          Dan

          Posted by: "Jeff Walsh" jeff@...   jeffdwalsh

          Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:28 pm (PDT)

          How is calling a flexitarian an omnivore slanderous? It's literally the definition of the word. I don't see why a new term is needed for people who eat a higher percentage of one thing over another...

          That said, I'm more annoyed by butters:
          - I'm vegan, but I eat a little fish
          - I'm vegetarian, but I eat some pork, etc.
        • Jeff Walsh
          Heh, it s a veg group, not sure anyone here doesn t get your point... I was specifically questioning your statement that calling a flexitarian an omnivore was
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 2, 2011
            Heh, it's a veg group, not sure anyone here doesn't get your point... I was specifically questioning your statement that calling a flexitarian an omnivore was "condemning" language. It seemed to elevate the term as higher than a mere omnivore, whereas I think of it as a niche group under omnivore. By this logic, it would be condemning a Roman Catholic to refer to them as Christian, which is their umbrella term.

            On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM, DJ Brook <brook@...> wrote:
             

            Wow, that was exactly the simplistic and self-defeating attitude I was referring to. You want this to be a so-called black and white issue, but few things are. Witness the different denominations in religions, the different types of Democrats, and, yes, the continuum of eaters. It's not necessarily like being pregnant - either you are or you aren't - but even there it's also a matter of how far along one is.

            A flexitarian, while still technically an omnivore and shouldn't be referred to as a vegetarian or vegan (ironically, you give good examples of flexitarians at the end of your message), likely eats a lot less meat than a typical omnivore and, by definition, eats less meat than someone who eats it all the time. While you may have the luxury of not thinking it any different, it actually means less torture, less death, and less environmental destruction.

            Further, I believe that those who are conscious about food and are at least doing something about it are more likely to go further and do more than someone who isn't conscious about or interested in food issues.

            Additionally, without those food-conscious non-veg*ns, of which there are many more than us, we possibly wouldn't have any, and certainly wouldn't have as many, veg restaurants in town, as they are not staying afloat just because of us.

            Peace,
            Dan

            Posted by: "Jeff Walsh" jeff@...   jeffdwalsh

            Thu Sep 1, 2011 9:28 pm (PDT)

            How is calling a flexitarian an omnivore slanderous? It's literally the definition of the word. I don't see why a new term is needed for people who eat a higher percentage of one thing over another...

            That said, I'm more annoyed by butters:
            - I'm vegan, but I eat a little fish
            - I'm vegetarian, but I eat some pork, etc.


          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.