Show Posts
1
General Discussion / flexitarians
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:50:21 AM »
I‘d like to know what’s your take on flexitarians –supposed vegetarian who “merely occasionally” eat animals? I’ve came across the term for the first time a few days ago but apparently it was the 2003’s most useful word chosen by the American Dialect Society. It appears that besides flexitarians there are also some who call themselves pollotarians and thus allow themselves eating poultry flash. There are also that sorry type formerly known as vegetarians that eat fish, now refer to themselves as pescetarians. The title may’ve been switched, though the base is all the same- they justify their consumption of fish and "seafood" by claiming that opposed to birds and mammals fish are not intelligent and lack the ability to feel pain-thus it’s o.k to eat them. Trying to line the three categories in my head in order of stupidity and idiocy - they all reach 1st place…
I’ve spoke with a few friends and they all basically responded in the spirit of "two flexitarians are better than one vegetarian", totally miscomprehending what seems as serious drift towards the self-contradicted tag - meateaters with a conscience.
I thought if there’s any place to unload it’s this radical refuge. At least here I won’t receive these middling and depressingly short-sighted messages that can only weaken the movement, and if anything serves as an indication of how weak it actually is.
I’ve spoke with a few friends and they all basically responded in the spirit of "two flexitarians are better than one vegetarian", totally miscomprehending what seems as serious drift towards the self-contradicted tag - meateaters with a conscience.
I thought if there’s any place to unload it’s this radical refuge. At least here I won’t receive these middling and depressingly short-sighted messages that can only weaken the movement, and if anything serves as an indication of how weak it actually is.