See what food labs are creating for meat-reducing flexitarian consumers

Originally published at:


To wit: the vegan bro who doxxed a vegan woman who had bought a (non-vegan) ice cream cone for a child.




Don’t be so puritanical that you drive away potential allies.


There’s currently a push among dieticians to consider going meatless one day a week, especially with kids, to acclimate them to the trend toward less meat consumption.

Why is it cool when a dietician suggests abstaining from meat, but oppression when the Catholic Church does the same?

1 Like

I mean, it’s cool that it’s a thing, but I just don’t feel like I need a label. I’m not a vegan, a vegetarian, or flexitarian, nor am I a carnivore, I’m just a person who doesn’t eat meat very often. I do that because it works for me. I have strong feelings about animal cruelty and cruelty in general, but I also grew up on a farm and I’m neither ignorant or squeamish about the things that have to be done to bring meat to the table.

I just don’t feel like eating very much of it, it’s not even a “lifestyle choice” I just don’t feel the compulsion to eat meat because it’s there. It’s not even a thing that I think about, I just eat the food that I like.


Was that really a suggestion?


Sturgeon’s Law?


The doc isn’t constantly reminding you you’re a dirty sinner who’s gonna go to hell?


i have never met one such person. I am a lifelong vegetarian. I know there are a lot of us, but I have sincerely never heard a rant by a vegan openly against meat eaters…they may bemoan animal cruelty etc but I haven’t seen or heard the rabid downer toxic vegans people keep bringing up - to wit - I think that is all horse shiz conspiracy talk…I am not saying there can’t be rude interactions out there…but mostly they are meat eaters getting irritated by vegetarians (like oh wow what do you eat … or oh no, how do we cater something for you it is such a burden). mostly beggies just try to stay under the radar and are apologetic for themselves…and in that sense it is cult like because we are all afraid of meat eaters coming after us…constantly…[Note - I accidentally used the word “beggies” instead of “veggies” - but I’m going to keep it because that’s what we are…people begging to get one single dish at a restaurant we can eat, and then begging for people to not be mad at us for letting it slip out that we exist]

1 Like

Do those exist?


I had a girlfriend a while ago who was Seventh Day Adventist. She told me she was “vegetarian except bacon.”


The word ‘suggests’. You’re being a little thick.


Vegetables are good… meat “substitutes” are stupid.

1 Like

Serious, completely non-snarky answer, since I’m sure those bases will be completely covered:

The difference is the context. The dietician suggests it because a great deal of people eat entirely too much of the stuff, and it’s detrimental to their health. Meat isn’t unhealthy, but Western society is so casual about meat consumption that it’s easy for it to become excessive without a person even realizing it, and that’s detrimental to their health.

Dogmatically, the Catholic church believes that Jesus of Nazareth died on a Friday so fasting, specifically abstaining from meat, (that whole “body and blood of Christ” thing) was a way of showing devotion. The rule actually only forbids warm-blooded animals, so you could eat all the bugs, fish, and reptiles you want, it’s just that out of those choices, Europeans only really developed a taste for fish so that’s what ended up being the standard. It wasn’t a terribly new idea, Judaism already had a bunch of ta’anith holidays, as well as various cultural prompts (after having one’s first-born, mourning a death, a form of penance, to name a few).

I’ve not personally heard anyone suggest that the church was oppressing people in any general sense. It was a “rule” but one that wasn’t treated like a mortal sin even prior to the significant rule changes that happened at Vatican II. Even prior to Vatican II it was less serious than the dietary rules that Judaism and Islam adherents must follow.

With that said, let’s assume that you have, the difference is where it’s coming from. The dietician is making a suggestion based on science and an individual’s well-being, while the church is basically guilting people into doing it because that’s what it says to do in the player’s handbook.

Bonus fun fact: The popular narrative that the fish on Fridays thing came from a crooked pope taking kickbacks from fishermen is false, but there’s a kernel of truth to it. What actually happened was Europe ate copious amounts of preserved mackerel and cod and loved it right up until Henry VIII decided that he wanted a divorce. Pope wouldn’t give him one, so he broke ties with the Vatican and created the Anglican church. In order to pull this off, it included huge helpings of state-sponsored anti-Catholic rhetoric and laws, and ultimately resulted in turning the act of eating fish into a political statement. “Popeish flesh” I believe it was called. As Anglicanism took root (not hard because of its initial nationalist leanings, it’s astonishing how that just seems to work every damned time, is it not?) eating fish looked more and more “Catholic” and anything “Catholic” was bad by matter of law, ultimately culminating with fast days in general being banned.

This absolutely destroyed the fishing-based economies that were spread all over England and the rest of Europe. What drives people to sail beyond the horizon? In the case of the Nords, it was to supply the devout with fish because it dominated so much of their “menu” for most of the year. They were chasing cod because it’s a significantly tastier fish than mackerel. When fish consumption dropped, it cratered the livelihoods of people in and out of England and created a lot of fairly significant social and political problems.

The situation got so dire (England is an island, after all) that when Edward VI (Henry VIII’s young(est?) son) took power, he instituted a complete reversal–in order to save the fishing industry in England from collapsing, he not only reinstated fast days, he made them a legal requirement.

My guess is that’s where the notion of it being oppressive comes from. Not so much from the pre-Anglican Catholic rules, but because of Edward VI making it a matter of law that people observe fast days and eat fish when told to by the government that is also in control of the state religion.


No but the doc certainly doesn’t have to say it to make you feel that way.

1 Like



Ok, ok, now we know you only hang out with cool people. :rofl:

1 Like

where do you live that you hear people openly being critical? It doesn’t count if someone says they don’t eat meat and someone just assumes they are being judgmental and rude.

Not actually true, except in cases of extreme manipulation of the semantic value of “positive environmental benefits”.

But a great illustration of what @William_Binns said -

You can find quite a few with Google, but I recommend you don’t. :slight_smile: The vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are interested in managing their personal consumption, it’s just a small percentage that feel the need to chastise others for eating traditionally, and IMHO it’s best to ignore them.

1 Like

I think it’s projection. I haven’t seen much of this from vegans, but have seen and heard quite a bit of ranting from people that are seemingly confused, frightened, or intimidated by people that don’t eat meat so that they say weird, hyperbolic stuff about veganism, vegitarianism and people that eat that way. I’m sure there is plenty of dietary self-righteousness going around, but I think some people tend to assume that people who don’t eat meat are self-righteous, when they mostly aren’t.

1 Like