Avatar, the difference is that the cut-off point for vegetarians is contradictory to their main principle (i.e. that lower lifeforms deserve our respect and sympathy), while there is no contradiction in the cut-off point of meat-eaters. For vegetarians to say that lower lifeforms deserve our respect and sympathy, then limit this to only a few, and BASE that limit on the fact that everything below the cut-off point is too lowly/primitive/unaware/unmoving/etc. to make the cut . . . this is inherently contradictory to their stated moral principle.if it's acceptable for meat-eaters to have a certain moral cut-off point, (which most do, for example, most would not accept cannibalism), then what difference does it make that vegetarians have a different one?
On the other hand, the cut-off point for meat-eaters doesn't contradict their stated belief that A) animals and plants do not have the same rights as humans, and B) humans have equal rights to life. This cut-off point is precisely in line with both A and B; in fact, it is simply a restatement of those beliefs.
Tazz, I wasn't prejudging you. I was arguing against the moral componant of vegetarianism. If this analysis made you defensive, then perhaps it is because you adhere to the moral component despite your protests?dont prejudge me please. my choosing not to eat meat in no way implies that i think myself to hold the moral high ground.
It is not a matter of discipline. Inclination, yes. And after researching this issue, I do not believe that the vegetarian lifestyle is inherently healthier. It boils down to personal choice, moderation, and variety. There are pros and cons to any type of food (many popular plants have natural toxins, for instance). No extreme is healthy. [Side note: the only case of food poisoning I've ever had was from a salad.]just admit that you like the taste of meat and you dont have the discipline or the inclination to give it up even if a non-meat/dairy diet is healthier. (how can that be logical btw?)
I call vegetarianism a fad because many people choose it for social reasons--based on the people they hang out with. This is an observation based on personal experience. Let me give you an example: back in college, I went to a chinese restaurant with two friends. One of them, a declared vegetarian, accidentally ordered something with meat in it. Once he was made aware of it, he didn't want to waste his money by throwing it away, or expose his ignorance by asking for a replacement. So he went ahead and ate it, with the provision that we didn't tell anyone.fad! 2000 years seems a rather long fad if you ask me.
My impressions of vegetarians are based on experiences like this. People want to fit in with certain groups, so they adopt their dress, speech, music, and eating habits to fit in. When you change your behavior to assimilate into a group, I call this a fad--a temporary behavior pattern for the purpose of group approval.
If that doesn't describe you, then take pride in your moral high ground, rather than denying it. Or--and this is just conjecture, not accusation--perhaps there are people in your own life whom you'd feel ashamed to see you eating meat?
