Not to want our children to eat red meat?

[Flymeaway4]

I'm vegetarian, have been for 20 years, partner is not. Since before they were born, I've said I'll let them have chicken, fish etc, but not red meat including pork. Once they're old enough to properly understand that meat was once an animal, then they can decide for themselves whether they want to eat red meat too, or be vege if they like, their choice. Partner thinks I'm ridiculous and said "why can't she have a ham sandwich" at a party yesterday, "what harm will it do". There were plenty of other options there anyway: chicken, cheese and egg sandwiches, quiche, fruit etc.

In case you think it's relevant, my reasoning behind no red meat is that I think cows and pigs are too intelligent, they know exactly what is happening when they arrive at the abattoir and I think that's just too cruel (and lambs are babies). Allowing chicken and fish, until they can make their own informed decision, was my compromise. If it were purely up to me, I'd be happy raising them vege!

So, am I being unreasonable?

@FelisCatus0

What's wrong with describing meat as dead body parts? I eat meat myself, but trying to avoid calling it a dead body is pointless; that's what it is. It's not 'dramatic' to say so, and it's certainly not extremist.

How would you describe what meat is made of?

Someone earlier referred to "rotting flesh" as well. It's childish. I'm surprised we haven't had chicken periods yet.

It's not childish. It's just blunt and realistic. 'Meat' is a euphemism for these things, there's no harm in stating the truth. People can call it whatever name they want, if it's accurate. The moral and ethical questions remain the same.

soooo meat is murder but chicken is justifiable homicide????

"dead body parts" is something an 11 year old boy would say to gross someone out. If said at the dinner table the child would be told to mind their manners and not talk disgusting. It's not something a mature, stable well-adjusted adult says.

It is not at all realistic. It's dirty and vulgar, and used for nothing but shock value. It's something a silly little kid would say while giggling to gross someone out. It is not something, a well, stable and well adjusted adult says.

You don't really need to, meat is self explanatory

@FelisCatus0

If you think semantics is the thing to focus on, that's fine. I think we have a deeper issue.

It's no semantics, it is vulgar language used to gross out people. And we see it for what it is, extremist language used to attempt to emotionally manipulate. That's the deep issue.

Exactly.

This has nothing to do with vegetarianism.

You and dh made a parenting decision together about what dc would eat, and now he wants to alter the agreement for no good reason, on a whim, at a party, with no discussion.

That's not okay. If it had been a decision about not going on the bouncy castle, or bedtimes, or how many sweets are allowed - the issue is the same. You two made a decision. If someone wants to alter it, you discuss the issue. That's parenting together. The ham sandwich was not an emergency which required a split-second call.

Dh has taken your compromise solution as an open invitation to push the boundaries. Personally, if he struggles with respecting that boundary, I would just raise them veggie. It's healthy and yummy and the dc will go tall and strong on a good veggie diet.

The PP probably does have extreme feelings about animals being harmed. Many people do. Instances of non food related animal cruelty and killing are pretty much universally condemned in much stronger terms. PP just extends these sensibilities to cover the meat trade. Just because other people don't all hold that view doesnt make her childish.
To PP that is how she sees meat. She is also factually correct.
If you disagree with her and believe eating meat to be a healthy, ethical and moral choice, why do you care if she uses a blunt term for it? Using a polite euphemism doesn't mean that meat stops being a dead body part, it just facilitates the cognitive dissonance many require to see animals as both lovable sentient beings that we should treat with kindness, and products to be killed for food.

'Meat' is a euphemism for these things, there's no harm in stating the truth

Meat isn't a euphemism, it's the correct and widely understood term. You're being disingenuous.

Not concerned about the 'killing and eating of animals', then.

Think we're at cross purposes. I thought the debate was about meat eating, you think it's about extremism.

I think that trying not to describe meat as body parts of dead animals is a bit mental, really. That is factually what they are. Saying that 'meat' is self explanatory is very simplistic. We don't just have one way of talking about things, there is generally a selection of ways of describing a thing, there is generally a choice. You might say 'car', I might say 'family vehicle'. Your word doesn't make mine wrong.

Anyway, not to worry. If you think that getting us all to use the 'right' word will solve the issue, I disagree. No point discussing it further. Neither of us is the 'authority' on the subject, so we'll have to agree to differ

Calling meat “dead body parts” is dirty, vulgar and unrealistic 😂have heard it all now. So we want to get into semantics?

I doubt you will be able to justify but how is it dirty?

Here are the definitions of dirty:
“covered or marked with an unclean substance.”

“used for emphasis”

“lewd” (aka sexual).

Which of those did you mean? Which describes the use of the phrase “dead body parts”?

And how is the use of “dead body parts” to describe bits taken from the body of an animal killed by humans in any way “vulgar”?

Definition of vulgar:

“making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.”

I don’t think a factual statement is coarse or rude and I didn’t make any offensive reference to sex or bodily functions.

And in what way is saying that people consume dead body parts unrealistic?

Definition of unrealistic:

”Not recognising the truth of the situation”

What is untrue about the fact that an animal has a body, the animal is killed by humans and is dead, parts of his or her body are cut off and packaged and sold and the result is dead body parts/ what we call meat.

Your quite visceral reaction to my use of “dead body parts” suggests to me that maybe you don’t like to see meat for what it is? You like the cognitive dissonance of seeing nicely packaged pieces in the supermarket and don’t like to think of the body that was chopped up, or the killing that got us to that body?

If so, it is quite a normal way to feel- we as humans have empathy and do not usually like to see other sentient beings who can think and feel be harmed. For many of us there needs to be a disconnect between the harm that happens and the fact we contribute to it. I’ve been very guilty of that in certain situations myself.

I am not saying you lack the intelligence to understand that meat is dead body parts. I am sure you do understand that. Rather it’s something you seem to not want to be faced with. My daughter will, in a gentle, age appropriate way, be taught that that is what meat is. If she chooses to eat it then I won’t say anything negative or use the term dead body parts to her any more as she will presumably not want to think about the animals being harmed if she is participating in that harm. I would not want to make her feel uncomfortable/ upset/ ashamed. But whilst she is not participating in the harm she’ll be told, very gently at the appropriate age, what happens and then it will be up to her to decide if that’s something she wants to do or not.

That was obviously meant for @FelisCatus0.

@FelisCatus0

At least have the guts and the integrity to admit you are saying it for shock value. Do you honestly think we don't know what you are playing at. Just stop feigning innocence. It's people like you that do so much damage to the image of vegans

This is an ad hominem attack. I hope nobody stoops so low as to argue with it. It's the sign of a weak argument, if nothing else.

So you couldn’t answer any of my questions basically? I explained at the bottom of my post exactly why I was saying it, did you read that?

I think you are being unreasonable. You choose to be a vegetarian but you are trying to force your beliefs on your children. Why not let your children have a mixture of meat and vegetarian.dishes and see what they prefer? I was a teacher for almost 25 years and I know some children were put down at school as vegetarian and supposed to be served vegetarian food. I know at least one of these children would try to get the meat options and when told they had to have veggie option would beg their friends for a sausage.

@caringcarer

So, you think that parents should all allow their children to do what the majority do, rather than make their own ethical decisions?

I think children should be given a balanced diet but be allowed to make their own food choices especially for school lunches, parties, BBQ etc. You can't do orve your ethics on your children and if you do try often they revolt as a teen.

@kikisparks We don’t give her dead body parts

I totally get your wording as you do seem on the extreme side of being vegan. That's fair enough. The emphasis on the word dead is, like you've also said factual. However, I bet you don't ask your DP/ DC whatever... what dead plants are we eating tonight? Although scientifically never proven to be sentient they were once actually alive. Not wanting an argument as it's obviously not comparable to animals but this is about the wording and probably why you've been questioned on it. If you see what I mean.

Possibly linked to the fact that we do see carrots growing, but we don't see beefs walking around in a field.

We are linguistically divorced from meat. Vegetables are called vegetables. Flesh is called meat. There it is.

What is the extreme side of being vegan? Not believing sentient beings should be exploited or harmed as far as possible and practicable is the definition of veganism as set out by the group who coined the word in 1944.

And yes plants aren’t proven to, and do not appear to, be sentient hence the difference so I don’t really get your point? I will also educate my DC on that (and when she’s old enough she can look at the research on it herself if she wants).