For those of you who are lucky enough to have never known one, a flexitarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. That is, except chicken. And fish. And shrimp.
Because it is usually a derogatory term, you won't hear someone refer to himself as a "flexitarian". Most of them still call themselves vegetarians, despite being the opposite of a textbook vegetarian. This, I have reasoned, is the primary reason flexitarians go unnoticed. I speculate that another reason many don't identify with the term is they have not thought out their dietary choices all that purposefully. Because of this, they lack any kind of rationale that could justify eating some animals and not others.
Below, I have identified just a few fundamental errors with flexitarianism:
1. The animals of choice for a flexitarian are smaller, and many more must be killed in order to get full.
Kill a cow, and you can feed your family for a week. Kill a chicken, and maybe you can feed your family for a day (with my appetite, you really need to kill two or three). Kill a shrimp, and you have a free sample at Long John Silver's. It seems like killing more animals goes against some sort of foundational belief in vegetarianism.
2. Only eating some animals is hurting the other animals' feelings.
Flexitarians are only excluding cows, pigs, and lambs. And horses and monkeys, I guess. It's gotta make the animals wonder what's so wrong with them that they aren't being eaten. Maybe flexitarianism has some underlying political basis.
3. Flexitarianism, like PETA, is biased in favor of cute animals.
With the exception of baby versions, no animal we omnivores eat is actually cute. But some are closer to looking like their cuter cartoon versions than others. Flexitarians do not eat those animals. Instead, they eat animals that are ugly and don't matter. Consider this: Old McDonald never had one of these on his farm:
4. Flexitarianism is unhealthy.
What do fish, shrimp, and chicken all have in common that cows and pigs do not? Fried food.
Conclusion: Our intellect and awareness of our place in the world are double-edged swords. If we ever find ourselves protecting other animals to the extent that we are suffering, then Darwin wins. I don't even want to think of an evolution pattern for man that does not involve the ninety-nine cent double cheeseburger. Or McDouble, or whatever it is now with only one slice of son-bitchin' cheese. But I digress.
The heart of this post is for me to tell you how to live your life. Eat meat and say it proudly, or don't eat meat at all and say it truthfully.
I wonder if Anne will read this... she's a so-called "flexatarian", last time I checked.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's possible to look upon eating animals in a moral grayscale context-- I'm not a vegetarian, but I've found myself eating less meat than I used to, simply because I'd like to be less complicit in a system where living things are forced to live unnaturally, and treated, quite frankly, like shit.
If I had more money (like... any money), I think I'd be willing to pay a little more for knowing that my meal at least enjoyed a peaceful life before it turned into my dinner. I part ways from the vegetarians in the sense that I don't think animals have the same concept of death as we do (so killing an animal is different from killing a mentally-functioning human being), and probably don't suffer as severely, but I'm good enough at causal connections to see that if I willingly give my money to a product that comes about from sick practices, I'm at least PARTIALLY responsible.
Keep in mind, everyone has their limits and their own issues. Some people refuse to buy blood diamonds, some people won't buy products that aren't fair trade, and some people just don't give a shit where it came from as long as it's cheap (haha).
I think there's a precedent for eating some animals and not others-- fish vs livestock is a good example, because most fish is caught in the wild, as opposed to livestock which, by-and-large, comes from large agricultural stockyards.
...probably didn't expect to get a comment this long on a comic blog, eh? ;P
Oh, but I do agree with you on this-- major activist organizations (and often flexatarians in general) are DEFINITELY biased in favor of cute animals. That's why it's not unimaginable to picture someone wearing a SAVE THE DOLPHINS t-shirt walking out of KFC with a 10-piece.
ReplyDeleteThose are some great points, Paul! All-in-all, I'm just poking fun at a less-addressed conversation topic.
ReplyDeleteAnd something that I forgot to address (which I will in an edit of this post) is that even fresh-caught fish that have led a "free life" suffer when they die from asphyxiation. And actually, fish from the store are about half fresh-caught and half farm-raised in poor living conditions. Fish is seemingly a more ethical choice because it is psychologically easier to kill them if they don't make noise.
I am what you would call a "panvore" (I eat EVERYTHING), but I am not as anti-vegetarian as this post makes me out to be. I will highly respect the first flexitarian that can give me sound reasoning for their diet. I imagine, like you said, there are gray areas, like the desire to cut out less healthy meats.
My criticism is not of flexitarianism, which has potential health benefits (provided you supplement your diet with vital amino acids contained in beef and pork), but of certain flexitarians who believe they are doing something special for our world.
When you depict the fish dying of asphyxiation, please have the sounds effects being "FUH FUH FUH FUH FUH!"
ReplyDeleteI think we should be more humane to the aminals! They're people too! Haha who am I kidding? But at least in the states you don't have to watch. Here in Korea, in many seafood restaurants they are cooked alive right in front of you. (Shrimp, octopodes, etc.) That way they can make you feel like an accomplice.
ReplyDelete