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.
posted by Craig D at 9:24 PM
14 Comments:
Just curious....what brought this up?
I hear you, brother!
And, I would be a COMPLETE hypocrite if I didn't support your personal admissions. More power to you. I, myself, am a nocturnal sun-worshiper. Don't laugh ... It's better than being a pork-spending deficit hawk ...
Amy: I read in the paper that there was a controversial vote on a proposition concerning what people ate.
Ian: Mmmm... pork! It isn't the pork that people are objecting to, it's the tofu.
What the F are you talking about? I'm going to bec ome a jewish anti-semite.
Well if life is what you make it then I see no reason why you can't be a meat eating vegetarian.
Yeah, good luck with that!
You can be a 'meatavegetarian' in your own little world I suppose.
I've been a total veggie for 14 years (for animal welfare reasons) and can safely say that it's the best decision i ever made...so much so that meat eaters disgust me these days.
Thanks....Did you notice that I've reviewed a Mystic Eyes 45?...one on the best of the 80s!
TIMELAPSE: You're that "expo67" guy from ye olde garagepunk.com forum!
You have just proven how cool non-meat-eating vegetarians can be!
That settles it. You're going on my blogroll at the next update!
But if we allow meat-eaters to become vegetarian, then we'd have to allow cannibals to be vegetarians.
There is NO WAY I will allow you to eat my children, sir.
NO WAY!
This is America, after all.
Well, as a non-meat-eating-vegetarian, I guess your method will make it easy -- that way, when the waitress brings you a "vegetarian" omelet with bits of ham peeking out, you can just shrug and dig in.
Chester: *Sigh* Why is it people always jump to the conclusion that cannibals want to prey upon children when thre are so many tasty, above-the-age-of-consent people just waiting to be eaten? Eating children is obviously wrong!
All this aside, your "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.
You are arguing that if meat-eaters are allowed to be vegetarians then it is inevitable that people who eat human flesh will then be permitted these same rights.
Obviously, if we allow you to use the "slippery slope" defense then we would have to allow post hoc, cum hoc, begging the question and sweeping generalities into the discussion.
"What is a logical fallacy," you ask?
It is what you point out in your oponent's reasoning when it looks as if they are about to make a valid point.
Sorry, Chester.
You idiot.
more cowbell: HEY! It's good to see out& about again! Have you gotten a new computer?
Your response to Mr. Strawman shows that it is YOU who are an idiot, not he!
You probably can't tell the difference between "No and "Know" or "Sealing" and "Ceiling" or "Right" and "Rite!"
That is how stupid YOU are, you meat-eating moron!
Irving, Irving, Irving.
Tsk, Tsk.
Obviously cannot come up with a reasonable counter-point to my air-tight logic, so you have decided to indulge in a personal, add homonym attack.
Shame, shame.
You must be one of those non-meat-eating vegetarians who limit their diets to eating the grass off their front lawns.
I do that, too but I also eat meat.
Please note that the antiquated anti-sod-n-meat laws have been rescinded.
You are a sad, phobic little man.
Post a Comment
<< Home