Unwilling Empathy

Grrrr

Although Stuart and I have both tired for now of the vegetarian debate, I was unwittingly forced to empathise today with the uncomfortable position that vegetarians are put in.

I have been safe till now from stopping eating veal cause it isn't that common in South Africa. But in Bermuda it is everywhere... basically half of most restaurants dishes are veal.

But, there are plenty of other options for Carntrevor so I am fine.

Today, I was having lunch with two colleagues who both ordered the most amazingly tasty looking veal chops. I got incredible order envy as I salivating looked at their dishes.

Nonetheless my meal was very tasty. The envy is not where the empathy comes in.

The veal chops were apparently amazing, and Grandpa Spanner (a colleague) offered me some.

TB: no thanks.
GS: why?
TB: I don't eat veal.
GS: Why? Don't you like it.
TB: No, I love it.
GS: So is it on principle that you don't eat it.
TB: I am not a vegetarian, veal is the only meat I don't eat.
GS: Why?
TB: Look, both of you are eating veal... I really don't want to talk about it now. Enjoy your meal.
XX: Is it because of the way the raise the animals.
TB: (uncomfortable) All I will say is that a friend of mine who is a vegetarian managed to convince me to stop eating veal after telling me how it was prepared. But I really don't want to spoil your meal, so let's rather just leave it.

hmmm....

On the comments of Stuart's latest response to our debate, Tracy continues the discussion of judgement.

Thinking more of why people get offended:

1) the conversation normally comes up WHILE people are eating meat. So it is (kind of but not exactly the same) like standing next to someone having sex and saying, I don't believe in sex before marriage. I think it is wrong.

2) It is a ethical judgment as opposed to a religious judgement, which is why people who are vegetarian for `religious reasons' don't seem to get judges. They don't eat meat, not because they object to animal cruelty practices of factory farming. Rather they don't eat meat because `God said so'. It seems easier to dismiss them and not feel judged because you can justify yourself by saying, oh, I don't believe in their God.

This could be seen as strange since ethics and religion are often viewed as tied. The thing is religious views are often not challenged to see if something is right or wrong on ethical grounds with a sound rational argument. It is what it is. So it is easier to dismiss.

Maybe I am not expressing myself well... but perhaps it is easier to have `religious tolerance' than it is to have `ethical tolerance'.

By not eating meat, you are not saying... I don't eat meat, but go ahead believe whatever you want. Effectively you are saying, I believe it is wrong to eat [farm-factory produced] meat and by eating it you are effectively endorsing cruelty to animals.

That doesn't sit easily.... hence the offence taken.