Also, a question about the “not vegetarians” thing. I’ll grant you ahead of time that a great many vegetarians/vegans aren’t doing it for any particularly rational reason. E.g., they think it’s healthier (it’s not), they think meat’s gross (subjective—but they’re wrong anyway :p), they exaggerate the environmental case, etc. But I have a hard time believing they actually fail to eat little to no meat.
What are you counting as “failing to be vegetarian”? If they eat meat once a month? Once a week? Once a day? I’d say that someone that eats meat once a day is not vegetarian. But I’d also say it’s reasonable for someone who eats meat even once a week to call themselves vegetarian. Are you claiming that there are lots of people who call themselves vegetarian but eat almost as much meat as “normal” people?
Even if vegetarianism were entirely status neutral, you need to communicate to people what you want to be eating. If you tell everyone “okay, I eat meat once a week”, then chances are high two people per week are going to say “great, here’s some meat”. So you won’t even be able to maintain this very liberal ratio.
I sometimes eat certain types of seafood, such as oysters or prawns, because I don’t believe this is actually cruel. An oyster is not a pig. It doesn’t have much of a nervous system to speak of. So why should I avoid eating them, just to meet someone’s definition?
Similarly, if someone can’t live healthily on a strictly vegetarian diet, but needs to eat some meat, why do they need to snap back to “no special diet” status? If they still think the meat industry is largely cruel, they can probably meet their health requirements by eating only a little meat. Why should this person not call themselves a vegetarian?
I personally eat very little meat. I don’t consider myself to be vegetarian.
I have never met a self-professed vegetarian that I’ve seen to eat meat. Not that this means there aren’t any… but my experience suggest to me that meat-eating vegetarians are not “the majority”
I can, however, conceive that some vegans might say that non-vegan vegetarians are not “really” vegetarian.
I am also aware of a certain movement, sprung from the vegetarian community, to spruik the “eat less meat” philosophy.
One of these may be where sam0345 is hearing about non-vegetarian vegetarians...
I don’t follow? Even if vegetarianism is highly negative starus, the word’s useful as a way to communicate your pre-commitments. Again, imagine the person who eats meat once a week attending several events per week where they will be expected to eat meat. If they don’t call themselves vegetarian, they won’t be able to keep their commitment. This says nothing about how much status they are gaining or losing, or how much they are ‘conforming’.
Also, a question about the “not vegetarians” thing. I’ll grant you ahead of time that a great many vegetarians/vegans aren’t doing it for any particularly rational reason. E.g., they think it’s healthier (it’s not), they think meat’s gross (subjective—but they’re wrong anyway :p), they exaggerate the environmental case, etc. But I have a hard time believing they actually fail to eat little to no meat.
What are you counting as “failing to be vegetarian”? If they eat meat once a month? Once a week? Once a day? I’d say that someone that eats meat once a day is not vegetarian. But I’d also say it’s reasonable for someone who eats meat even once a week to call themselves vegetarian. Are you claiming that there are lots of people who call themselves vegetarian but eat almost as much meat as “normal” people?
Even if vegetarianism were entirely status neutral, you need to communicate to people what you want to be eating. If you tell everyone “okay, I eat meat once a week”, then chances are high two people per week are going to say “great, here’s some meat”. So you won’t even be able to maintain this very liberal ratio.
I sometimes eat certain types of seafood, such as oysters or prawns, because I don’t believe this is actually cruel. An oyster is not a pig. It doesn’t have much of a nervous system to speak of. So why should I avoid eating them, just to meet someone’s definition?
Similarly, if someone can’t live healthily on a strictly vegetarian diet, but needs to eat some meat, why do they need to snap back to “no special diet” status? If they still think the meat industry is largely cruel, they can probably meet their health requirements by eating only a little meat. Why should this person not call themselves a vegetarian?
I personally eat very little meat. I don’t consider myself to be vegetarian.
I have never met a self-professed vegetarian that I’ve seen to eat meat. Not that this means there aren’t any… but my experience suggest to me that meat-eating vegetarians are not “the majority”
I can, however, conceive that some vegans might say that non-vegan vegetarians are not “really” vegetarian.
I am also aware of a certain movement, sprung from the vegetarian community, to spruik the “eat less meat” philosophy.
One of these may be where sam0345 is hearing about non-vegetarian vegetarians...
Of course this person can call himself a vegetarian. But that he is inclined to do so would indicate that vegetarianism is not non conformity.
I don’t follow? Even if vegetarianism is highly negative starus, the word’s useful as a way to communicate your pre-commitments. Again, imagine the person who eats meat once a week attending several events per week where they will be expected to eat meat. If they don’t call themselves vegetarian, they won’t be able to keep their commitment. This says nothing about how much status they are gaining or losing, or how much they are ‘conforming’.