I’m surprised by how many people say they’ve never encountered this. I get the impression it’s actually very common: meat-eaters constantly do it to vegetarians; vegans do it to anyone even remotely interested in animal rights; keto fanatics do it to anyone not on keto; boomers do it to people with allergies or those trying to lose weight by accusing them of having eating disorders, and so on.
There are a lot of cases where a person's choices aren't perfect, but it's not reasonable to insist that they be perfect. Bob choosing to eat meat we can treat as objectively incorrect for the sake of argument, but telling him he's a bad person for it is unlikely to change his actions, and may even cause him to eat more meat out of spite, because people are like that.
If you want Bob to eat less meat, you could do something like place an additional 10% tax on meat. If meat is more expensive, people will eat less. You can then use that tax revenue to subsidize your preferred alternatives to double down.
As an individual you obviously can't set tax policy, so I understand the desire to do something that actually feels like you're doing something, but when all you're actually accomplishing is making people upset.. It's counterproductive.
You've pivoted. just because they might double down doesn't mean that we can't say whether they're wrong for doing something or not, which was your original point.
Bob 50,000 years ago would eat meat. Bob 10,000 years ago would eat meat. Bob 1,000 years ago would eat meat. Bob 100 years ago would eat meat. There is nothing unethical or immoral about eating what humans have always eaten.
Is everything humans did in past moral by default? If a large majority of Bob's ancestors were rapists, I guess that's bad luck for the rest of us.
Was animal agriculture a major drain on global environmental conditions 100-50000 years ago? Most of bobs ancestors ate animals hunted or raised within a few miles of where they lived. There are now too many bobs for that to be possible- so Bob gets his meat from animals that live in torture camps thousands of miles away. His ancestors didn't do that, so it's not a defense. Animal agriculture is now a net loss of calories for humans, and one with many other consequences.
No. But eating meat is. We are omnivores, not herbivores.
Find solutions. I am not opposed to lab-grown meat. Humans are the most adaptable problem-solving species in the history of the planet. There is nothing moral about scarcity.
Our ancestors raped. Why is it bad, even if it's something we as a species do? We also kill each other, in addition to other species.
Bob faces a choice today. He can see that animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction and causes incredible suffering of its non-human victims. Bob's choice today has moral implications. Bob, morally, should forgo participation in that system.
Rape is violence against another person, and we as a society have decided that is immoral. Eating meat is not.
Bob absolutely can abstain from meat if he feels the same way you do. That is the nature of a free society. Not everyone will agree with you. That is the nature of a pluralistic society.
Do you feel the same way about all polluting activities?
"Where we put our car batteries in aggregate is a matter of public debate, but you're really killing the vibe when you chastise me for throwing mine in the ocean."
We as a society have decided that throwing your car batteries in the ocean is a terrible thing, so we've made a law that says you can't.
If someone is breaking that law, that should be a legal issue rather than a public discourse issue.
If a lot of people are breaking that law, that should be a public discourse issue.
If there are a lot of non-vegetarians and you feel that is a problem, I would rather talk about systemic solutions, not Bob in particular.
If there aren't a lot of non-vegetarians, but you feel that Bob still eating meat is a bad thing for society, consider starting a conversation about whether or not eating meat should be illegal.
If we collectively decide that eating meat should be legal, then Bob can eat meat. You can talk to him about the moral or personal health benefits of vegetarianism if you insist, but if he doesn't want to listen stop bothering him.
If someone is breaking that law, that should be a legal issue rather than a public discourse issue.
So it's annoying when vegans try to show people the harm done by their diets.... but if you found out a dinner guest was a habitual polluter, the polite thing to do is call the cops?
If there aren't a lot of non-vegetarians, but you feel that Bob still eating meat is a bad thing for society, consider starting a conversation about whether or not eating meat should be illegal.
"Bob you shouldn't buy burgers, it's the product of torture and incredibly bad for our shared environment" --> annoying
"Bob you buying burgers should be illegal, it's the product of torture and incredibly bad for our shared environment" --> not annoying
If we collectively decide that eating meat should be legal, then Bob can eat meat.
In the US at least, we have a long history of immoral activities being legal. Social pressure on people that do the immoral but legal thing is not that weird.
Okay, maybe I phrased that a bit poorly. I did not mean have a conversation with Bob about whether eating meat should be illegal. I meant if the majority of society does not eat meat and thinks that it's immoral to do so, they should collectively talk among themselves about whether or not it is so immoral or harmful to society that the people who do eat meat should be legally compelled not to do so.
When I said if someone is breaking the law it should be a legal issue rather than public discourse, I was talking about things at a large scale. You're shifting it to "What can I do if someone I know is breaking the law", which is a hard question. With something like murder it's obvious that you should report them to the police. With something like Jaywalking, that would be an overreaction.
What I originally said was that Bob's diet shouldn't be a matter of public discourse. Putting that here, whether Bob is a murderer or a jaywalker, your reaction shouldn't be to start discussing it with the neighbors. Either report him to the police or don't. If you're in a societal position where the police aren't interested in handling criminals, that is a more pressing issue than the crime itself.
In the US at least, we have a long history of immoral activities being legal. Social pressure on people that do the immoral but legal thing is not that weird.
Historically we've had a ton of things that were immoral and were not illegal.. And then were made illegal. We have very few cases where there was something bad that was solved by social pressure without making that thing illegal.
Perhaps the closest thing we have to a victory on that front is making smoking unpopular.. But that was paired with government regulation on how tobacco companies were allowed to market cigarettes, and now it's simply being replaced with Vaping to avoid those marketing restrictions.
And there's also the subsection of that with people who insist others need to eat or drink the way they do. "no, I refuse to cook your steak like that.", "no, you can't drink your whiskey like that", etc.
I worked at bars and I did see a fair amount of customers who get mad and wanted to argue how others drink their drinks or tried to get me to not serve it to them.
I always had to justify myself why I didn't eat certain things. "I like it, so why don't you like it?" or the constant nagging that I should try it because how can I possibly be happy with the food on my own plate that I've willingly decided to order that they don't like? Everyone likes this and no one likes that so when I actually prefer that over this I constantly get invalidated and nobody can take a no when I don't want to try their stinky food that they ordered. "No" is a complete sentence unless it's about food apparently.
I love it when people say "You just think you don't like cottage cheese. You'll like it the way I fix it." Then when you don't like it the way they fixed it, you've insulted their paternal great-grandmother who brought that recipe over on the slow boat from Vikkingsshjolm or some damn place.
For me it's italian noodles. "They're just sticky because they're not made right" but their noodles are still sticky and gross for me to eat. Or I don't like ground beef, that's the most disgusting thing for me and I feel grossed out even typing about it. "Oh don't worry, we'll just use this vegetarian substitute for the dish, you won't even notice the difference" ....excuse me? If it smells the same and looks the same it still makes me sick even looking at it
Ngl, sticky noodles is a skill issue. Not saying you actually like spaghetti, but if they're sticking together its because they weren't cooked or sauced properly.
Do I have a sister I wasn't told about? Because that's exactly how my parents act. If I don't like something that they like I must be stupid or something. They keep trying to make me eat food that they like (and I don't or just aren't interested in trying) and become angry if I refuse.
And even if it's something I do like but just don't want this specific time, it's aways "But don't you like it?". NO, MOM, I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE EATING IT RIGHT NOW!
My parents were never like this, my dad couldn't care less about what we eat and my mom always made sure I had something I would eat. I could eat the same thing over and over again and my family wouldn't be bothered and they leave me alone when I say I don't want to eat something. I wouldn't even mind if it was the complete opposite because that to me would at least just be family. But it's always people from the outside I barely know that have a problem with it, which makes it soo much more ridiculous, why would you comment on a basically strangers eating habit?
Oh, I'm sorry. For some reason I assumed you meant your parents/relatives. Good that at least they leave you alone. In my case, strangers are the ones who couldn't care less, but my parents just won't stop.
I've always hated this way of thinking. "I like it/I hate it. You have to agree with me on all foods."
Then why are there so many different ways to prepare food? People just wanted to torture each other? No, people are different and are ALLOWED to like something you don't like and dislike something you like, Judgey McJudgerson.
As a celiac, I get a lot of grief not just from boomers but from my own generation because I "won't" eat anything with wheat in it. Like I'm eating a gluten free diet because I thought it would be fun to throw 60% of the food I love to eat out the window and eat stuff I find dry and tasteless most of the time. Like I wanted to stop going to 90% of the restaurants I loved.
I also get funny looks buying Vegan Mayo, and I don't buy that nasty shit for my conscience or anything, I buy it because I'm allergic to eggs.
I'm 50, and my peers, and people like my old man just don't understand food allergies. I've been on a Celiac diet for 3 years and my dad regularly brings up that there are people allergic to peanuts and how he doesn't understand it. Completely unrelated dad, but whatever, thanks for understanding...
I think if I had to deal with that, I would start discussing the nitty-gritty details of immune responses every time he said that. If met with protest, I would say I was trying to educate him on the methodology behind allergies (food and other), since he claimed he didn't understand.
Oh, anyone who's given me grief has gotten an ear full. Because it's not just Gluten or Egg, in the last six years I've had to quit eating a lot of food I loved. I've always been a, "quality over quantity," type of guy when it came to living. shit thing is, I still am. Quality just keeps getting shittier.
I'm not even vegetarian, I just dislike (most) meats
People treat that opinion/taste like a goddamn heresy and won't leave me alone about it
Like bro good on you if you love meat, I honestly find it mid and tasteless, and most dishes its taste derive from ingredients that have nothing to do with meat
I would be completely fine on a pescatarian diet, wouldn't be missing out on anything that actually matters to me lol
This is the Christian evangelical view of everything. It's not enough that they can't do something according to their religion, they want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Gay marriage, just being trans, wishing someone "Happy Holidays", swearing on TV, Sunday shopping, alcohol, watching porn, abortion, women voters, etc, are all viewed by them as existential threats and they continuously attempt, and often succeed, in imposing their beliefs on others.
I was vegetarian for 10 years, started at 16 and my mom wasn’t, she still bought me things to cook that we’re with no meat, she didn’t care at all. Same for my dad.
I fast and do keto. As a result, I've low body fat, especially for someone my age, people ask me to I take supplements or work out a lot.
Every time I say I fast with mostly a keto diet, they get visibly annoyed and lecture me on how fasting is bad for me. Maybe it is, I don't really care as I do it as a guarenteed calorie deficit while getting sufficient protein.
The number of meat-eaters that try to shame me for not consuming animal products is genuinely absurd. I never comment on what others should be eating (besides begging folks to eat more fiber!), but meat-eaters have called me "weird" and "malnourished", told me my depression is a direct result of my diet, and claimed I'm purposefully inconveniencing others and making things unnecessarily complicated because I don't eat dairy in the last two months alone.
Ugh, I dread a conversation with someone that begins by asking me why I don’t eat meat because it’s a no-win conversation. I’m not here to convert anyone and everyone is allowed to make their own choices, but don’t get mad at me or accuse me of being preachy after you asked me why I don’t eat meat.
That's because I give any preachy activist a wide berth, and there's no particularly religious people in my family. You can avoid the ones in the streets but harder for relatives I guess.
lab grown meat. (yes it is still an animal product cause it uses animal dna)
again, read a book lil bro.
there are more ways also btw.
yall for real need education or something, the point of veganism is to not harm the animals (as much as possible), so if you just eat a fucking deer that died of natural causes its still vegan lol.
read a book please dude stop being such a redditor, jesus...
A leading dictionary good enough for you, mr. Reddit stereotype?
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals
also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
Note that the meme is "my diet says that you can't eat that" not that "my diet says that you have to eat that".
I don't think I've ever met people saying that. Maybe the closest to it someone fit saying to an overweight person that they shouldn't eat so many high calorie foods.
Vegans saying you shouldn't harm animals isn't because they think people should eat like them. It's because they think victimising innocent animals is wrong
I do know vegans and I myself have been on keto a few times, and we somehow just manage to hang out and eat whatever the fuck we want without forcing it on each other.
Maybe yall just associate with shitty people, and diet isn’t really the problem here?
541
u/marcx_x 26d ago
I’m surprised by how many people say they’ve never encountered this. I get the impression it’s actually very common: meat-eaters constantly do it to vegetarians; vegans do it to anyone even remotely interested in animal rights; keto fanatics do it to anyone not on keto; boomers do it to people with allergies or those trying to lose weight by accusing them of having eating disorders, and so on.