Thoughts on this? Is there ''no point'' being vegetarian?(35 Posts)
Friend A; let's call him Frank has gone vegetarian recently. His reasons are mainly for the environment, but also for the animals and his health. Friend B; let's call her Jane, says there is no point at all becoming vegetarian for either the planet or for the animals, as dairy is worse than meat for the animals and because cheese and butter are apparently worse for the planet than chicken or pork...
Frank intends to go vegan eventually, but is in no great hurry to do so, but he does eat vegan quite a lot and always goes for non dairy milk when we're out for coffee etc. FWIW, June is neither veggie nor vegan.
I honestly don't know what I think, except that I would've thought veggie was indeed a bit better than eating meat, for the animals and the planet..?
But maybe I'm mistaken and actually local chicken / pork and no dairy is better?
I know there are a lot of vegans and veggies on here, so thought I'd ask you, if you don't mind.
Argh sorry! June and Jane are one and the same! I meant to say Jane.
(disclosure - not vegetarian but DH and DD are)
I don't think that it's not worth it to be veggie - there are many good reasons for cutting out meat and fish - but I do agree that, climate-change-wise, you might as well ditch the dairy as the meat. I mean, I think (not an expert) that dairy cows are worse for the environment that chickens.
Reducing your consumption of animal products will be a tiny bit good for the environment/animals regardless of how you do it but saying that these are your motivations is quite hypocritical. You are saying that you know that what you are doing (i.e. consuming animal products) is bad and you want kudos for not doing it except your actually going to continue doing it.
I feel like I misunderstood the argument somehow.
I rarely or never eat meat. Is Jane’s argument that this makes absolutely no difference, because I enjoy eating yoghurt sometimes?
If so, how does that work? I don’t get it.
It seems like an equivalent argument would be that there’s no point cutting down on smoking, because every cigarette is doing you damage. But that makes no sense either
Also: Jane sounds like one of those people who comment on news stories about climate change protest saying, “Think of all the paper they’re wasting on their placards” as if it was some tremendous ‘gotcha!’
I was vegetarian for many years, about 23 years.
This was because of animal rights, etc
However, I realised that if you are interested in animal rights at all, then being vegetarian isn't much good. Either go completely vegan and don't contribute to the industry at all; or eat the good quality, British meat that insists on good standards of treatment for livestock. I chose the latter.
However, Jane should wind her neck in!! It's noone else's business what you chose to eat for whatever reason or what you chose to exclude from your diet for whatever reason. Sheesh, the amount of scrutiny and questions and arguments I heard when I was vegetarian!!!!
😂😂😂 you are bang on hood!
In her defence, she is a smart cookie, but sometimes a bit too outspoken.
The thing is, we have all discussed reducing consumption of animal products and she is totally on board. It was just when Frank said he'd gone veggie she seemed to take issue.
Jane's argument sounds like "you shouldn't give £2 to charity because if you do you should have given £5 because that's better. If you're not going to give £5 then don't bother giving anything at all".
People do as much as they can. A little bit is better than nothing. And even nothing would be better than what Jane's doing because she's actively trying to get people to do less!
Jane's argument only stacks up if veggies replaced all the meat in their diet with dairy. Which is highly unlikely.
Jane sounds like a bit of a righteous twit. Suspect her motivations are 100% based on her reluctance to acknowledge any of the environmental or ethical impacts of her own diet.
But, is it really true that eating PORK is better than cheese for the planet? It just doesn't seem right to me... but I don't know.
I guess all you can do is try, but it's a bit disheartening for Frank to hear that^^. I am a reducitarian I guess. But I also think kudos to people who go veggie or vegan.
June or Jane can do what they want and stop trying to force Frank to do what she wants. It is literally none of her business.
Ooooooh devil THANK YOU! That makes perfect sense. Of course that's right!
Jane's argument is very illogical, considering she's such a smart cookie.
I dunno, she seems smart to me, because I never have a counter argument ready if she pulls this crap .
I think climate wise dairy is worse than chicken. So giving up chicken may not be the most effective thing to do but providing chicken isn't being replaced by cheese in every meal it is going to help a bit.
she is smart, she has correctly, in my view, highlighted an important point re dietary choices.
Some people simply think that no-one should express an opposing opinion to anyone about anything. They're not so smart...
She is smart. I mean, she has a Masters in Physics etc. She is definitely smart. But there's more to life than being clever and she could definitely have made her point in a less confrontational way.
But that's not the point of the thread. Really interested to learn than dairy is worse than chicken! And I'm glad I know that.
We are, all three of us, very old friends and will remain so for a long time I hope. But it doesn't mean I sometimes don't want to tell her to calm the fuck down and stop being so aggressive when making a point. Even if the point is an interesting one.
well, people in general don't like women being forthright. Was she really being aggressive? Or just making a point firm and sticking to it?
We're massively deviating from the point of the thread I think, but as you ask, yes, I think she was being aggressive, or at least, overly confrontational. The fact that she has a vulva makes no difference to me at all. I am a proud owner of a vulva myself .
Frank is very polite and non-confrontational. Also very smart and thoughtful. If you were to pick the more forthright of the two, you would be a total fool to pick Frank.
So, although it's true that in many situations, women aren't 'allowed' to be forthright, (while men are applauded for it), in this case, the woman is by far the more outspoken one.
and good on her for being so. Because her point is very valid, and one that should be made more often.
If you;re going to change your diet for environmental reasons (rather than health or animal rights reasons, for example) then good on you - but you need to think.
Good for her for being forthright, but there's a huge difference between being forthright and being unnecessarily confrontational. I don't happen to enjoy it as a character trait in friends or acquaintances of any gender.
Just because her point is valid and she has the absolute right to express it in any way she likes, it doesn't mean I have to like it, just because she's a woman and I should be applauding her for being more aggressive than was really called for imo. In a political debate or at work maybe, yeah, fair enough, but around close friends, maybe a bit of friendliness wouldn't go amiss instead of what appeared to me to be ruthless point scoring.
Excuse shite grammar - I'm typing on my phone.
But surely it is still better for more people to become vegetarian than for them to eat meat? People like Jane putting them off is simply going to make them think "Well stuff it then - I might as well go back to eating meat as well as dairy!"
Her point wasn't "Think". Her point was "There's no point in becoming vegetarian". Neither for the environment nor the animals apparently - though how continuing to eating dairy but not pork is still harmful to pigs, I can't imagine.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.