PS. It's a bit fucking stupid posting this question in the first place if you're unwilling to listen to other people's opinions just because they're different from your own.
The question wasn't from me. It was from ahisma; I am ericf. I haven't even seen a response from ahisma. Omnivore does not have a present tense assumption built into it. An animal that eats meat and vegetables is an omnivore. A person who eats no meat for a year except for some turkey on Thanksgiving (an admittedly horrible reason to eat meat) would they be a vegetarian (in the present tense) for 364 days and then an omnivore on that one day, then go back to being a vegetarian? Of course not. What if a vegetarian goes 364 days and then get stuck in an elevator for 12 hours. And the other people in the elevator happen to have some chinese food that they share with them. The food has meat in it but the vegetarian eats it anyway because they are starving and do not know how long it will take to get rescued. Were they never really a vegetarian? Come on... we can't get hung up on the labels. I think the primary thing is that you are insisting that flexitarian is making some claim as to being similar to vegetarian. It isn't. Flexitarian IS NOT vegetarian. But that does not mean it isn't meaningful. It might be less confusing to say, "I try to avoid meat." But it would also be less confusing for a vegetarian to say, "I don't eat any meat or eggs but dairy is okay." The fact that a word has ambiguity built into it does not mean the word is, or the people who wish to associate themselves with that word are, wrong. Flexitarian != Vegetarian. Flexitarian != Semi-vegetarian. Flexitarian == 'A person who consciously prefers to not consume meat but is willing to make exceptions.' Am I being paranoid? You are saying exactly what I said you were saying... and you're continuing to say it.
Sorry, my bad. It does when used in the context of describing one's dietry behaviour. No, they'd be an omnivore who was eating a vegetarian diet for 364 days. In this context, the words "omnivore" and "vegetarian" are used to describe our behavioural intentions. They'd be a vegetarian who slipped up. I agree. I don't think lables serve much purpose. After all, some vegetarians don't consider others to be vegetarian who wear leather. Likewise with vegans and wool. The only really valuable purpose I can think of label serving is to give us a goal to work towards or an ideal to live up to. And flexatarian doesn't provide either of those. I'm not, actually. I think this is an assumption you've made. It's entirely incorrect, and probably explains why you've adopted such a confrontational position towards me. I've never made any judgements about people who call themselves flexatarians. I have no objection to it whatsoever. I've only commented on whether I think it's a useful term - which I don't. I don't take an offence at the use of the term though. People can call themselves whatever they like. Again, this is an assumption that you've made about my position that's entirely based on your own prejudice. I've never made a single damn criticism of anyone who chooses to describe themselves in that way. I've simply commented that I don't think the term is useful. That's an opinion, not a judgement. Well you seem to be accusing me of a whole load of opinions and prejudices that I've never held, nor given any sign of holding, so can you think of a word other than paranoid with which to describe your behaviour? You're arguing with me for the sake of it.
Um yeah.. I was going to post just that. If anything, it's about language snobbery, not dietry snobbery.
Not to be rude, but that's pathetic. Stealing is stealing, and eating meat is just that. My best friend only eats chicken, but she doesn't call herself "semi-vegetarian" because she knows there's no such thing. I will say, though, that it's a great thing you don't eat meat while eating out, because it doesn't support the restaurant's meat itself. However, by eating meat at all, you're still supporting the slaughter of animals for food.
I think the flexitarian term is out of the veggie for health camp, not the animal suffering reduction camp. I hope it translates to "will be veg by the end of the year" or some such... we will eventually become the majority, because most omnis can't hunt and the machine age will wind down. Hail the Archaic revival.
I understand that flexitarian could be a way of gradually getting meat-eaters to turn vegetarian / vegan. However, I don't think the word itself makes sense. If someone eats 1 burger a week, are they flexitarian? If someone eats 2 burgers a week, are they flexitarian? If someone eats 3 burgers a week, are they flexitarian? (repeat until bored) At what point does someone stop being flexitarian and become omnivorous? Wherever you draw the line, it is abitrary. I would understand more if a flexitarian was someone who was trying to be vegetarian, but that doesn't even seem to be what is being suggested, it's just someone who eats meat. Maybe I've misunderstood.
flexitarian = animals been killed in factory farms for you to eat = you can call yourself what u want = you suck!
i honestly think its silly to claim that the word is used to lessen confusion, because really if every person who calls themself a flexitarian interprets it differently then its more useful to describe your diet in full detail. if joe eats 10 burgers a week and cuts down to 7, is he a flexitarian? if so then should he be described by the same word used for annie, who eats 10 burgers a week and cuts down to 1? the only reason i can think of the word being used is so that people who are making an effort have something to call themselves to feel some sort of reward for their effort. i mean if everyone interprets the word differently then there can't be a meaning, it's impossible. it's great they're cutting down, if everyone in the world did that then animals would be in a much better situation than they are now, and they truly can call themselves whatever they want to, they just shouldn't expect people to know what they're talking about when they use a word that could mean anything from meat 6 days a week, to meat once a month.
but some vegetarians consume milk, some eggs, some both. We developed names for that. Some vegans accept honey, or used leather/wool/silk. It becomes hard to draw an arbitrary line in the sand, unless you refuse to eat! if flextarian labels help someone wean off meat, then it served a purpose. "Labels are for wine bottles" -christo
At least have the decency to own up and say 'yes I eat meat' rather than hiding behind some stupid term, as if they feel guilty about eating meat. (though they probably should) I really don't understand why some vegetarians think people should feel guilty for eating meat. Some of us--believe it or not--actually NEED it. OK, OK, before you prosthyletize to me, I'll tell you: I know the ENTIRE veggie spiel. I used to be vegan. Seriously vegan. I used no animal products whatsoever, except leather shoes that I purchased secondhand, because I needed shoes, and it wasn't like my money was contributing to animal death or anything. BUT...I got pregnant. My midwife said that, despite my ethical beliefs, it was almost impossible to be a healthy, pregnant vegan, because a vegan diet cannot easily provide enough nutrients for both the mother AND the baby. So I started eating dairy and eggs again, but it didn't help much: despite being incredibly conscientious (you may not believe me, but I actually kept a checklist of the nutrients I needed every day, and would check off EVERYTHING on most days...look at what a pregnant woman needs in the third trimester, and you'll see how freakin' hard that is!) I was borderline anemic, and felt absolutely drained of energy throughout my entire pregnancy. When my son was born, I started eating meat again, after 8 years of rejecting it completely. I have never felt better. It's not that I eat a lot of meat--in fact, there are many days on which I eat none at all, because I don't think that people need to eat very much meat to be healthy--but I can feel the difference it makes in my overall energy level, as well as my mental clarity. I bike about 40 miles every week (no car), care for an active 18-month-old kid full time--except for the 12 hours a week that I spend in school--and still have enough energy left at night to do fun things, like sewing. Or typing on the computer. I did not have this much energy when I was a vegetarian. Also, it is impossible to get the kind of concentrated nutrition that meat provides from any vegetable product. I have extremely high calorie needs, and I am borderline underweight, so every meal counts, and it's hard to pack yourself full of vegetable protein when you're running after a toddler. If I'm not careful to eat a large serving of cheese or nuts on meatless days, I'll end up cranky and lightheaded by nighttime, which is no fun at all. I actually learned some interesting trivia from my (also ex-vegetarian) neighbor: the first devout (i.e. not because they didn't have access to meat) vegetarians were Buddhist monks, who spent most of their time sitting around and meditating. They didn't have very high energy needs, but the common people who took care of their fields and houses ate meat every chance they got, because they recognized that it provided an amazing amount of energy, compared with vegetable matter. I'm not knocking vegetarians (remember, I used to be one). I think that vegetarians are cool, because they're making a conscious choice to help conserve Earth's resources. I think that vegetarians should remember that there are many ways to practice conservation, and I think they should also remember that there are people for whom life is not so sedentary, not so mellow, not so easy as it is for the average American. There are people who actually need strength and endurance JUST TO GET THROUGH THE DAY. I'm not talking athletes--I'm talking people whose lives are not lived leisurely or sitting down: committed mothers, laborers, farmers, etc. For many people who rely heavily on their body for survival, meat is essential to enjoying life. (And, as I pointed out to my rabidly vegetarian friend, the fact that I shower for five minutes every three days, and make all of my food and coffee at home, from organic, fresh/bulk-bin ingredients, probably contributes just as much to the environment as her vegetarian, paper-cup-using, packaged-food-eating, long-shower-taking lifestyle. Like I said, there are MANY ways to save the Earth...and I think they're ALL important. So y'all vegetarians should stop being so dogmatic about it, because you're just like all the Christain moralists who say that hippies are going to Hell...maybe, instead of saying that people should feel guilty for eating animals, you should look at areas of your own life that could use improvement--like your ability to accept people who have different opinions and modes of life.) I guess that got pretty long...I'll stop for now. --alyce
oops...that first paragraph (in my long post) was supposed to be a quote...I hope it wasn't too confusing...
I don't know anything about pregnancy, or your personal situation (illnesses, conditions etc) so I can't really comment directly on you. However I can give comments about myself. I am vegan, and I work out and weighlift, and at university I had no car so I had to walk everywhere. I used to go to the gym between six and nine times a week at uni. I always have enough energy. I think it's misguided to think that vegetarians or vegans are all sat on their behinds and never do anything. There are many athletes that are vegan, and as far as I am aware, vegans and vegetarians are not short of energy for everyday life. If a person gets all the right levels of everything, there is no other reason for them to not operate properly. You can get all the right levels of nutrients on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Many people (myself included) believe that killing animals is totally wrong in the same way that killing people is wrong. This is why we judge people who eat animals, as they are paying for animals to be killed. If your views do not coincide with this, then that's your decision. However, it makes perfect sense for moral vegetarians and vegans to feel upset with people who eat meat, because they believe it is a crime, and it shouldn't be done.
Wow, I didn't think I'd get this kinda response. Anyway, I've been away from a computer for a bit, and its interesting to read all your posts. Let me reiterate, I do not see a distinction between a a flexitarian and any other meat eater except that they choose veg. options. I personally view myself as a meat eater who tries to limit my consumption for a number of reasons, but I do not identify as veg/flex. I've been and veg for about 8 months at one point, but I gave it up for a number of reasons. First, I was losing a lot of weight(I'm really skinny to begin with), not that I couldn't have kept the weight on as a veg, but my hummingbird metabolism makes it extremely hard. Second, I started working at a job which gave room and board, and their idea of a veg option was PB & J every day. Lastly, I like to travel alot, and sampling native foods often meant eating meat. Anyway, I do truly respect the hardcore vegs., and I hope to go back oneday. At this point, I simply try to limit my meat intake. Peace
hows it any harder to keep weight on as a veggie to a meat eater????? i can see the not been vegan point as i have a friend who has some illness where shes dead skinny too, and she cant be vegan even though even though she wants to. i dont see no reason to not be veggie though unless you value eating a dinner of meat over the life of a animal. illness or no illness. and what the fuck is a hard core veggie or vegan anyway, you either eat it or u dont, hard core veggie is some bollocks word that strange people use, a hard core veggie is a vegan, and a vegan is a vegan, simple as.
yeah i do believe you cant be a flexitarian, although i do respect everyone is different, and not everyone can be a vegetarian becuase of other reasons.In my worthless opinion it comes down to how one can feel content, vegetarian, vegam, meater whatever.
