A Defining Moment
I have decided to become a vegetarian.
There are a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian.
I understand that there will be a number of health benefits as a result of becoming one.
I expect my cholesterol level to go down, for instance.
An increase in "heart health" is sure to follow.
And, I have to admit, I look forward to a certain feeling of moral superiority to those who aren't vegetarians.
Of course, I have no intention of changing anything about my core food consumption habits.
In fact, I intend to continue eating meat.
You see, I feel that the definition of vegetarianism should be changed to include those who eat meat as well as those who don't eat meat.
You don't oppose this clearly logical approach, do you?
You do?
Boy, what a hate-filled hating hater you are!
I can't help that I eat meat. I was born this way. Ever since I was weaned from mother's milk I have craved and eaten meat. I have always known that I am a meat-eater. I shouldn't have to change the way I am or pretend to be be what I am not to meet "others" idea of how I should live my life.
I feel I should be allowed to eat meat and also have all the benefits and entitlements associated with being a vegetarian. It is unfair that only those people who "don't eat meat" should be granted those benefits.
And I don't see how I would be "spoiling it" for non-meat-eating vegetarians to allow meat-eaters who so desire the "vegetarian" designation to claim it for our own.
Maybe I should post a photo of Mariel clutching a "Please don't force my Daddy to stop being a vegetarian" sign on the web. Obviously that's what would happen if the meat-phobic hate mongers forced us meat-eating vegetarians to abide by their arbitrary, exclusionary definition of what constitutes "vegetarianism."
My unassailable, crystal-clear logic concludes that the portion of the population who are meat-eaters who want to be identified as vegetarians should be allowed to set the definition for what constitutes vegetarianism.
No rational, clear-thinking, modern human being could or should object to this.
Or are you some sort of logic-hating, minority, fringe hate-monger?
No? Good! I was hoping I could shame you into silence.
Now, let there be no further discussion or dissention on the subject.
I am a vegetarian.
There are a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian.
I understand that there will be a number of health benefits as a result of becoming one.
I expect my cholesterol level to go down, for instance.
An increase in "heart health" is sure to follow.
And, I have to admit, I look forward to a certain feeling of moral superiority to those who aren't vegetarians.
Of course, I have no intention of changing anything about my core food consumption habits.
In fact, I intend to continue eating meat.
You see, I feel that the definition of vegetarianism should be changed to include those who eat meat as well as those who don't eat meat.
You don't oppose this clearly logical approach, do you?
You do?
Boy, what a hate-filled hating hater you are!
I can't help that I eat meat. I was born this way. Ever since I was weaned from mother's milk I have craved and eaten meat. I have always known that I am a meat-eater. I shouldn't have to change the way I am or pretend to be be what I am not to meet "others" idea of how I should live my life.
I feel I should be allowed to eat meat and also have all the benefits and entitlements associated with being a vegetarian. It is unfair that only those people who "don't eat meat" should be granted those benefits.
And I don't see how I would be "spoiling it" for non-meat-eating vegetarians to allow meat-eaters who so desire the "vegetarian" designation to claim it for our own.
Maybe I should post a photo of Mariel clutching a "Please don't force my Daddy to stop being a vegetarian" sign on the web. Obviously that's what would happen if the meat-phobic hate mongers forced us meat-eating vegetarians to abide by their arbitrary, exclusionary definition of what constitutes "vegetarianism."
My unassailable, crystal-clear logic concludes that the portion of the population who are meat-eaters who want to be identified as vegetarians should be allowed to set the definition for what constitutes vegetarianism.
No rational, clear-thinking, modern human being could or should object to this.
Or are you some sort of logic-hating, minority, fringe hate-monger?
No? Good! I was hoping I could shame you into silence.
Now, let there be no further discussion or dissention on the subject.
I am a vegetarian.