Vegetarian discussion (Split from May Dinnermeet)

[Kithop]

As much as my opinion doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand, my own beliefs on this boil down to:

• We have evolved to be omnivorous - we can eat lots of things, both vegetables and meat, and acquire nutrients from them.
• Animals feel pain, have emotions, form bonds (even inter-species) with others, and have various rudimentary forms of communication.
• Growing/raising animals for meat is much more energy and water intensive, per gram of resultant protein, than protein-rich vegetable crops like soy, other legumes, etc.  Beef is one of the 'worst', chicken is better, but still pales in comparison.
• As a species, we already have a tremendous demand for energy and water as-is; meat-eating is part of it, though not all of it.

I had been thinking of going vegetarian since I was in my early teens; I've had emotional responses to meat-containing meals that my parents and peers dismissed as 'just being silly'.  When Star decided to go completely vegetarian a few months ago, I did it along with her initially just for ease of cooking and eating meals together; if it works for her, it can work for me, right?  The environmental and 'moral' concerns were icing on the cake to the simple convenience of only having to cook one set of meals.

Now that I've become used to it over the past few months, honestly, I don't even miss meat, not even bacon. :O  It actually puts me off, thinking about eating it.  I'm more comfortable eating vegetarian alternatives, be it made with soy (i.e. tofu), wheat (i.e. seitan), or a combination of the two processed as a meat analogue.

That said, what people eat is their own personal choice.  If you want to/are used to eating meat, that's perfectly cool.  Everyone else in the house cooks and eats meat, and it's fine (provided they clean the common dishes/utensils thoroughly afterwards, of course).  Inadvertent cross-contamination isn't the absolute end of the world, IMO, as the point isn't 'omg eww don't let it touch me', it's not purchasing/supporting meat and its production in general.  However, from what I understand, the point of the dinner meets is more the meet, over dinner.  Many places offer at least a few vegetarian options amongst the standard meat-containing fare, which is cool - we should at least be holding ourselves to that group as to be as inclusive as possible, just as we would expect to be going to places that can accommodate someone with a food allergy (e.g. my dad has celiac and is thus allergic to the gluten found in wheat, oats, and so forth, so he has to be very careful when eating out).  I think it's unfair to consider restaurants that are completely, 100% carnivorous in their offerings as candidates for dinner meets just as it would be unfair to go somewhere that serves/cooks everything slathered in peanut butter if we had a few furs that were deathly allergic to peanuts.

I don't think we're asking a whole lot here - I'm not saying we have to go to Foundation all the time (I've been once; the nachos are amazing, but yeah - they're complete and utter hipster snobs), or a vegetarian Buddhist-Chinese place, or anything like that - we're not trying to deny meat-eaters anything; we just want to be able to participate, hang out with our friends, and be included.  Yeah, places like White Spot may have what - two, three options for us, tops?  That's fine; it's something so we're not completely left out.  Would you guys treat someone with a legitimate food allergy the same way?  'Oh, sorry - guess you can't come this month.'  Voting, while good to get a general feel and guideline, is not the be-all and end-all of decision making.  There's a reason 'true' democracy doesn't work, the same as 'true' communism or insert-system-here (see tyranny of the majority), and why we have things like minority rights.

I have nothing against people who eat meat, or don't, or whatever their beliefs are - I just want to be able to be a part of these functions, especially when we're a definite non-zero percentage of the fandom and the population at large.  I'm not vegetarian to spite anyone; I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone - honestly, it's your body, your health, your life, your conscience, and your decision, any more than someone with a peanut allergy is trying to 'convert' their friends to avoiding peanuts..(?!) it just doesn't make sense, it's preachy, and generally not well-received regardless.  I do take offence to people ridiculing us for our choice just as one would take offence to someone criticising your sexual orientation - it's a personal choice that involves quite a bit of commitment, and all we're asking for is some respect and decency so everyone can feel included and be a part of the community, regardless of a multitude of factors - orientation, religion, dietary, etc.

[Ember]

Furries.

[Kithop]

Furries.

+1 :p

[Rukario]

To start with, I have a cousin who suffers close to anaphylactic shock when he comes into contact with meat/meat products, including eggs and milk.  So it is very real and potentially fatal.

The same is the case with some of the synthetic meat substitutes used in vegetarian cooking.  I too have an intolerance to one (or more) of them.  It matters little how many "scientific advances" have been made in vegetarian cuisine; it will only result in more, not less, such intolerances and allergies coming to the forefront.  Still, when going to a vegetarian restaurant, how is the non-vegetarian to know if that textured blob of fake meat is going to launch them into a shock-induced coma?

[Kithop]

This is very true, and exactly why I like places that offer options for everyone, and can cater to people with allergies or other dietary requirements, be it religious or otherwise. n.n  I'm not trying to champion one thing vs. another, but inclusiveness.

[Rukario]

Furries.

+1 :p

+2 :p

I do take offence to people ridiculing us for our choice just as one would take offence to someone criticising your sexual orientation - it's a personal choice

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Good one, linking to the Tyranny of the Majority, however.  I was thinking just that, except this isn't even about the majority.  Look at last month; 29 votes cast, the winning restaurant had only 7 votes, and only 16 people turned up.  Oh well, such is the nature of FPTP.  On the other hand, who wants to write an SMF mod to implement STV, AV+, or AMS?

[Kithop]

Furries.

+1 :p

+2 :p

I do take offence to people ridiculing us for our choice just as one would take offence to someone criticising your sexual orientation - it's a personal choice

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Good one, linking to the Tyranny of the Majority, however.  I was thinking just that, except this isn't even about the majority.  Look at last month; 29 votes cast, the winning restaurant had only 7 votes, and only 16 people turned up.  Oh well, such is the nature of FPTP.  On the other hand, who wants to write an SMF mod to implement STV, AV+, or AMS?

Sorry - I guess more accurately, I should just say 'it's personal', omitting the choice bit. :p  Didn't mean to mince words and offend there.

And yeah, I totally agree, having been a big STV supporter when it's been up for vote here.  Ugh, so complicated, though. ;.;  I is not good with math, or programming. (*hides top student award*) <.< >.>;

[Rukario]

Sorry - I guess more accurately, I should just say 'it's personal', omitting the choice bit. :p  Didn't mean to mince words and offend there.

And yeah, I totally agree, having been a big STV supporter when it's been up for vote here.  Ugh, so complicated, though. ;.;  I is not good with math, or programming. (*hides top student award*) <.< >.>;

I too am an STV fan, and am following the UK election with great interest.  I have worked on counting the results of the 2005 STV Northern Ireland Assembly election.  And yes, I do know, and understand, the mathematical model.

However, I'd prefer a consensus rather than a vote for the meet venue.

[Kithop]

However, I'd prefer a consensus rather than a vote for the meet venue.

Consensus requires active, actual discussion, deliberation, and compromise, though - not whimsical instinctual clicking on a radio button in an online poll. ;)  A poll you can't change your mind on after submitting, though, too. o_o;  Maybe that would be a nice little starting point...

[Rukario]

However, I'd prefer a consensus rather than a vote for the meet venue.

Consensus requires active, actual discussion, deliberation, and compromise, though - not whimsical instinctual clicking on a radio button in an online poll. ;)  A poll you can't change your mind on after submitting, though, too. o_o;  Maybe that would be a nice little starting point...

That's why I want to promote discussion on the matter.  Unfortunately, discussions, as you can see here, tend to devolve into dramafests.  Kind of like the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Carthage]

STV is great for political scenarios but this is a restaurant outing.

Polling for the dinnermeet worked for years before the forum existed. It's only recently that it has become troublesome thanks to too many options to choose from.

I can understand the importance of stv or concensus if I'm electing someone to run my country for the next five years. This is going out to dinner with friends. Suggesting a location shouldn't mean it gets on the poll, and we shouldn't have 20 things on the poll. I like the idea of having a vegetarian or veg-friendly option each month, but we should have that, one other option and an "I don't care I'm just there to chill" option. That should be how the polls are set up.

We can't please everyone, but we can make as many people happy as possible. 
 

[Rukario]

STV is great for political scenarios but this is a restaurant outing.

Thank you!!!! At last, a voice of reason!!!

This isn't geopolitics FFS!  We're talking about the earth-shattering decision of where to go for dinner.

[IceKarma]

I agree with you almost entirely, Kithop, except for one point:

I don't think we're asking a whole lot here - I'm not saying we have to go to Foundation all the time (I've been once; the nachos are amazing, but yeah - they're complete and utter hipster snobs), or a vegetarian Buddhist-Chinese place, or anything like that - we're not trying to deny meat-eaters anything; we just want to be able to participate, hang out with our friends, and be included.  Yeah, places like White Spot may have what - two, three options for us, tops?  That's fine; it's something so we're not completely left out.  Would you guys treat someone with a legitimate food allergy the same way?  'Oh, sorry - guess you can't come this month.'  Voting, while good to get a general feel and guideline, is not the be-all and end-all of decision making.  There's a reason 'true' democracy doesn't work, the same as 'true' communism or insert-system-here (see tyranny of the majority), and why we have things like minority rights.

I'm not actually allergic to seafood, I just loathe the taste, texture, and smell, to the point that I won't go to a seafood restaurant even if it does serve non-seafood options. Leaving aside the extremely tiny minority of people who cannot eat meat products, insisting that we must never go to places that don't cater to vegetarians in order to be inclusive and not leave you and Star out (are there even any other vegetarians in VFUR? I can't think of any offhand, but I've also not exactly been heavily involved) comes across much like me insisting that we must never go to a restaurant that only serves seafood to be inclusive and not leave me out.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to insinuate here that you refrain from eating meat for stupid reasons and you should Just Get Over It™.  I'm trying to point out that you're asking for special, preferential treatment because of your dietary preferences.

I don't eat seafood, but you don't see me insisting on banning seafood restaurants, the way you seem to me to be asking for restaurants that don't serve vegetarian options to be banned.

[Kithop]

I don't eat seafood, but you don't see me insisting on banning seafood restaurants, the way you seem to me to be asking for restaurants that don't serve vegetarian options to be banned.

I actually have never liked seafood myself either, even long before.. :p  So I totally understand, there - but most 'seafood' places even still offer at least one or two things that we can eat.  I went to a place that called itself an oyster bar on Salt Spring Island with Star and I had a wonderful pecan-based 'burger' there - granted it was that, nachos, or a salad, but the options were still there.  It's really not that hard and honestly I'm kind of surprised that this has had to become an issue at all, because I find that a restaurant that DOESN'T have at least a single vegetarian option (even if it's a garden salad) is extremely, ludicrously rare.

Actually, I believe I've missed or can't find the original first part of this that started the whole damned thread in the first place... did we actually settle on some bizzaro 'everything-is-made-of-meat' place? <.<; Do they exist? XD  I mean, Swiss Chalet is probably the only place I can think of where it's downright next to impossible to get something that's not chicken, covered in chicken grease gravy, or fried in the oil alongside the chicken, but the one time I went there, they did offer a garden salad that I had, and it was fine..?

I have a terrible memory when it comes to these things. u.u

[IceKarma]

Actually, I believe I've missed or can't find the original first part of this that started the whole damned thread in the first place... did we actually settle on some bizzaro 'everything-is-made-of-meat' place? <.<; Do they exist? XD  I mean, Swiss Chalet is probably the only place I can think of where it's downright next to impossible to get something that's not chicken, covered in chicken grease gravy, or fried in the oil alongside the chicken, but the one time I went there, they did offer a garden salad that I had, and it was fine..?

I'm pretty sure it was the Red Robin we just went to not having anything suitable for vegetarians on the menu.