Tasty, tasty murder

I’ve been a picky eater my whole life. Whenever I learn that I like a new food, I tend to revel in the joy of finding something that brings me closer to eating like a normal human being.

For example, after a distaste for carbonated beverages my whole life, I recently discovered that hey, it’s not so bad. Now I’ve been trying new sodas all over the place (with my favorite so far being cream soda). It’s pretty momentous for me to know I can go to a party or another group event and actually drink soda along with everyone else, instead of looking for a drinking fountain or going beverage-less.

I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to understand how people can give up foods they like by choice, and willingly put themselves in a minority when it comes to what everyone else is eating. I understand doing it for health reasons, but it annoys me when people elevate their diet to a moral level. Just because you don’t eat meat doesn’t mean that people will stop eating handburgers, so stop acting like you’re singlehandedly saving the planet. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a vegan or a vegetarian, but it’s often the attitudes that come with the choice in diet.

And I’ve been a part in enough group functions where a venue choice that I’ve been looking forward to has been changed because enough vegans and vegetarians have voiced their objections. As a picky eater, I’ve often had to make do or go hungry when a group decides to eat somewhere I don’t want to – but I don’t complain, because I’m just one person who doesn’t want to ruin a group’s fun. When a voluntary minority infringes on what I get to eat, I get a little cranky.

This cartoon is my little way of poking fun at the whole thing. Fluttershy would be horrified. 🙂


6 thoughts on “Tasty, tasty murder

  1. I’m not a vegetarian by any stretch of the imagination, but I still don’t understand why, as a social group, vegetarians get so much flak about their diets. Yeah, I know that there are some of them that seem to desire to turn their diet into a status symbol of moral superiority (essentially the dietary form of owning a prius), but in recent years those people have been more-or-less swallowed up by indignant carnivores who seem bent on shoving THEIR dietary habits into the face of any vegetarian they happen to find. The trope has been almost completely reversed!

    The thing is, I can understand how, if someone’s moral code directed them to think that taking the life of a living creature for its delicious, delicious flesh was morally impermissible, that they might consider it a major moral obligation to never be complicit in eating meat.
    If they’re trying to control what YOU get to eat, yeah, that’s definitely more intrusive (and debatably none of their business) , but keep in mind it’s rarely that they don’t want to eat meat because they consider it “icky”, so much as because they think your action is semi-directly causing death to come to a living being. Just like you don’t believe a mother has a “right” to have that kind of control over the life of her unborn child, they don’t believe you have a right to that kind of control over the life of a cow/chicken/kangaroo/whatever.

    • The obvious yet somewhat childish reply is to say “vegetarians started it.” Vegetarians were saying “meat is murder” before omnivores said “for every animal you don’t eat, I’ll eat three.” Vegetarians wouldn’t be given the flak they are if it weren’t for the moral superiority factor to begin with. Somewhat unfair to the more reserved vegetarians? Perhaps, but there it is.

      I can understand the moral reasons not to eat meat; but I wish some of the more zealous herbicidal maniacs would take the time to understand why I don’t elevate the life of a cow to the same moral level of the life of a human being. There’s a big difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

      • I’m not so sure, though. Yes, vegetarians arguably “started it” by calling meat-eaters out on supposedly unethical behavior. But honestly, how is that unexpected or abnormal? At worst, it’s intrusive and annoying, but if mainstream pro-choice activists responded to pro-lifers’ calls of “abortion is murder” by saying “for every fetus you don’t abort, I’m going to abort three”, I highly doubt anyone would label that a reasonable response. I’d hesitate to say that they’d even get away with something as light as “childish”.

        Again, I’m not a vegetarian, but I HAVE found over the past few years that they seem to get kicked around way more than they deserve.

      • Again, it goes back to the difference between human life and animal life, and the difference between rights and welfare. A cow is a cow, but a person is a person. If you joke about cruelty to cows some might consider it tasteless, but if someone were to actually say “for every fetus you don’t abort, I’m going to abort three” it would be beyond tasteless. You’re joking about HUMAN LIFE, or at least understand that others see it as human life.

      • But that brings us back to the problem you highlighted earlier– the need to understand other people’s moral codes. You’re analyzing the situation with your own code which categorically places human life as important and animal life as unimportant (or less important).

        People who care a lot about animal rights rarely see that kind of incredibly steep distinction. Even as someone who doesn’t see killing a cow as morally equivalent to killing a mentally aware human being, I see the “human life as the only life with real value” concept as being really arbitrary.

      • I can UNDERSTAND someone else’s moral code up until the point when it becomes wholly incompatible with my moral code.
        What I mean by that is if someone doesn’t want to eat animals because they’re morally opposed, that’s fine. They can even criticize me for eating animals if they want – still fine, just annoying. They’re not affecting me in any real significant way (I don’t have a right to be unoffended, after all).
        The problem arises where if a person and a dog are trapped in a burning building, the animal rights person saying that saving the person doesn’t take priority over saving the dog.
        The whole “animals have the same rights as human beings” argument is completely incompatible with any reasonable outlook on society. I’m not going to bother being polite with anyone that shares that view, because it’s not worthy of being considered. It’s like trying to be polite to an out and out racist. It’s a fundamentally flawed worldview.
        Again, there is a difference between animal rights and animal welfare, and I hate when the word “right” is thrown around cavalierly. I love animals; I oppose needless cruelty to animals, and I think people that don’t are sick. But animals do not have the same RIGHTS as human beings. If someone is offended by me saying that, I don’t really care!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s