"Vegetarian" Business/Formal Shoe Options

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by whnay.

Hilter was a vegetarian.

Sure, but Stalin was not vegetarian. Im pretty sure Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Vlad Tepes, and various other nefarious individuals have also been non-vegetarian.

On the other hand, I would bet 99% of all Nobel Prize peace winners have not been vegetarian either - i.e. I doubt Nelson Mandela's dinner plate consists of just vegetables. He most probably eats meat. Who else of the meat eating crew were great? Moses, St Paul, Ghandi, Churchill, etc etc...

I dont think diet has anything to do with whether you are a good person or not.

If that were not so, psychiatric hospitals would not need to perform lobotomies or shock therapies to alter a persons behaviour. Give em a plate of meat or veggies, and they will radically transform into a different being

 

[musicguy]

Those of you condemning veganism/vegetarianism are much bigger douches than any vegan/vegetarian I've seen on this site. Get over yourself, holy crap.

 

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by DWFII

That's fine as long as you have a good, solid, well-thought-out rationale for doing it. Mindlessness (or willful ignorance) is always destructive to somebody.

And if you are going to come into an arena where leather shoes are extolled (even if, in some cases, they don't deserve it) and express an opinion/perspective that runs contrary to the general consensus, then you are begging for trouble. And at the very least, you ought to be ready to defend your reasoning.

It's like the sheep asking the wolf why he likes mutton.

I like the quote! Of course, if someone is vegetarian and tries to convert non - vegetarians into his way is much akin to two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch.

Im assuming in discussion that the individual has a rational mind. A psycho or wierdo with such a rationale would easily find a justifiable cause of reasonable action for killing a bunch of people. Making such assumptions in a generic sense is not applicable, but Im mainly applying that psychology to people who are pretty normal and balanced. I prefer to keep an open mind, much like the "different cultures, different attitudes" approach.

In context of the thread though, if the guy does not want to wear leather shoes thats up to him. It is not up to him whether other people are tolerant to him. I wear leather shoes and make no apologies for it, but one mans meat is anothers poison etc... If I knew where to find good non-leather shoes, I would surely tell him where to look. It sure costs me nothing to help him out.

 

[Blackat]

Ignoring all the tangents and insecure people who feel threatened because you don't eat meat (maybe they are cattle ranchers?) you might try MooShoes in NYC. (They have a website.) No, fake leather shoes won't be as well-crafted as higher end real leather shoes and no, they won't be as breathable as leather, but they might have something that meets your needs.

 

[randomax]

Originally Posted by Klobber

Sure, but Stalin was not vegetarian. Im pretty sure Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Vlad Tepes, and various other nefarious individuals have also been non-vegetarian.

On the other hand, I would bet 99% of all Nobel Prize peace winners have not been vegetarian either - i.e. I doubt Nelson Mandela's dinner plate consists of just vegetables. He most probably eats meat. Who else of the meat eating crew were great? Moses, St Paul, Ghandi, Churchill, etc etc...

I dont think diet has anything to do with whether you are a good person or not.

If that were not so, psychiatric hospitals would not need to perform lobotomies or shock therapies to alter a persons behaviour. Give em a plate of meat or veggies, and they will radically transform into a different being

Not to digress from the topic, but Gandhi was actually a vegetarian (he experimented in meat as a child though).

My 2 cents on this:
I find it somewhat amusing that people ask me at times why I am vegetarian? I think the obvious question should be that in this day and age, why eat meat? Also, to those calling flexible vegans/vegetarians hypocrites. Where do you draw the line in calling yourself meat eaters? Do you eat all kinds of meat? To quote an extreme example, say human meat? If not, then you are a hypocrite as well. And if you, well, then you're probably a freak.

 

[cptjeff]

Why eat meat? Because that's a part of a well balanced diet. It's what humans have evolved to eat. That's the default.

And the only reason people define themselves as meat eaters is becasue people like you define yourself as non- meat eaters. Would you be better with "vegetarians" and "normal people", since that more accurately describes the situation? When you're trying to argue that nature itself is flat out wrong, the burden of proof is on you, buddy. People ask because you're making an active choice to reject your natural diet. You made that choice for a reason, good or otherwise. Why do you have a problem telling them the answer?

As DWFII pointed out, whatever you want to do is fine as long as you have a valid thought out reason. I could have a normal diet otherwise and not eat corn fed beef, for example. There are quite a few damned good reasons to do that. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocryte.

 

[retozimmermann]

Originally Posted by whnay.

Hilter was a vegetarian.

I'm sorry but that's an absolute idiotic and unrelated statement. I don't know if it is true but even if it is, it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. A classic logical fallacy. It's like saying evil person A wore a red shirt therefore all red-shirt wearing people are evil.

I'm not at all in support of a vegan lifestyle but to each their own. But to take out Hitler is just in bad taste and in most circumstances logically unsound.

 

[Bounder]

Originally Posted by randomax

Also, to those calling flexible vegans/vegetarians hypocrites. Where do you draw the line in calling yourself meat eaters? Do you eat all kinds of meat? To quote an extreme example, say human meat? If not, then you are a hypocrite as well. And if you, well, then you're probably a freak.
I have nothing against flexible vegetarians or even, to the extent the exist, flexible vegans. In fact, "flexible"vegetarians are great. I have a lot of respect for someone who wants to be a vegetarian but is able and willing to balance that against other priorities. I know some practicing vegetarians who will even eat meat to be polite, e.g. at a dinner party. Non-flexible vegetarians who don't eat meat because they don't think it is good for them are still usually tolerable. Where the whole thing breaks down is with the vegetarians/vegans who insist on making a political statement out of their eating habits. People who put their quest for vegan purity above all things are seriously disturbed and, worse, annoying.

 

[entrero]

Originally Posted by Klobber

I dont think diet has anything to do with whether you are a good person or not.
Many people nowadays forget that meat is a luxury, it's also the most nutrient dense food. So depending on where you live it's a statement of wealth.

Originally Posted by randomax

Not to digress from the topic, but Gandhi was actually a vegetarian (he experimented in meat as a child though).
Good you mentioned Gandhi. The Hindu culture supports vegetarianism and I'd say it makes a lot of sense. For example why kill a cow for it's meat, when it's more beneficial in the long term to keep it alive. Gandhi is a perfect example where his beliefs, culture and options coincide.

My 2 cents on this: I find it somewhat amusing that people ask me at times why I am vegetarian? I think the obvious question should be that in this day and age, why eat meat? Also, to those calling flexible vegans/vegetarians hypocrites. Where do you draw the line in calling yourself meat eaters? Do you eat all kinds of meat? To quote an extreme example, say human meat? If not, then you are a hypocrite as well. And if you, well, then you're probably a freak.

In your case you got the luxury to have options and also you're making a political statement. In the West it's more economically sound to have a meat based diet while in the East such as India is having a vegan based diet. IMO there's no such thing as "flexible" vegan, you're just a normal person who has a preference for veggies and by calling yourself that way, you feel above others. Same goes for "meat eaters", a normal person who has a preference for a meat based diet, and think they're more "manly" by calling themselves that way. Your example on where to draw the line is wrongly put. You mean if a "meat eater" ever eats a vegetable, would that be considered hypocrisy? Answered above. It all boils down to whether your purse allows you to be.

 

[mickey711]

Originally Posted by retozimmermann

I'm sorry but that's an absolute idiotic and unrelated statement. I don't know if it is true but even if it is, it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. A classic logical fallacy. It's like saying evil person A wore a red shirt therefore all red-shirt wearing people are evil.

I'm not at all in support of a vegan lifestyle but to each their own. But to take out Hitler is just in bad taste and in most circumstances logically unsound.

He was clearly joking, using a classic Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

Originally Posted by cptjeff

Why eat meat? Because that's a part of a well balanced diet. It's what humans have evolved to eat. That's the default.

And the only reason people define themselves as meat eaters is becasue people like you define yourself as non- meat eaters. Would you be better with "vegetarians" and "normal people", since that more accurately describes the situation? When you're trying to argue that nature itself is flat out wrong, the burden of proof is on you, buddy. People ask because you're making an active choice to reject your natural diet. You made that choice for a reason, good or otherwise. Why do you have a problem telling them the answer?

As DWFII pointed out, whatever you want to do is fine as long as you have a valid thought out reason. I could have a normal diet otherwise and not eat corn fed beef, for example. There are quite a few damned good reasons to do that. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocryte.

+1. Well said, cptjeff.

It bothers me when people make the choice to become a vegetarian or vegan simply because they want to make a political statement or it ostensibly makes them morally superior to those who choose to eat meat.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by mickey711

It bothers me when people make the choice to become a vegetarian or vegan simply because they want to make a political statement or it ostensibly makes them morally superior to those who choose to eat meat.
With 65 years of patina on this old hide, I am leery of making judgments, so what I am about to say has to be viewed as opinion and off-the-cuff opinion, at that. I have never met a vegetarian that was not politically liberal. I have never met a liberal that wasn't out to change the world, make converts, and contrast...sometimes ostentatiously...their ethical and spiritual superiority over those who do not share their beliefs. As a general rule, I like liberals. I sympathize with their impulse to be "good." I just don't think they are firmly anchored in reality. Perhaps eating meat makes me harder, more aggressive. Or perhaps taking part in the cycle of life on this planet gives me a perspective that brooks less folderol. But the bottom line...esp. as regards this discussion...is that I don't go to the houses of vegetarians and ask where I can buy a hamburger. I don't knock on doors and hand out tracts. I don't campaign against broccoli bolters or throw paint on people who are wearing hemp. I don't seek out vegans to bore them to death with paeans to parsnips and purity. I simply do what my body...my genetic heritage and eons of evolution...was designed to do. And, I might add, I derive a great deal of sensual gratification from doing so. Beyond that, I don't think much more about it. Except when it's thrown in my face. Do what you want vegans...or vegetarians, ovarians, rotiferians, whatever...I don't care. Eat dirt if you wish...just close your mouth when you chew.

 

[JamesX]

Originally Posted by DWFII

I have never met a liberal that wasn't out to change the world, make converts, and contrast...sometimes ostentatiously...their ethical and spiritual superiority over those who do not share their beliefs.

Wow how did this thread degenerate into this tangent? From Vege to meat to Liberalism and Conservatism.

However, by that definition nearly every great man in history is a liberal. It is natural for those who believe they are superior to lord over those they consider inferior. It is as common in Liberals as it is in Conservatives.

How many bible thumpers have knocked on people's door preaching that they will be damned in the eyes of god because the evils of their ways? How many conservatives have blown up liberal abortion clinics? how many right wing nut jobs have plot to raise in arm insurrection against their fellow citizens?

Immodesty and intolerance is a sign of EXTREMISM. Which exists both for the left and the right. For every PITA fanatic there is one Conservative that is equally fanatic in their calling. Be it condemning homosexuality, to racism, to whatever.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by JamesX

Wow how did this thread degenerate into this tangent? From Vege to meat to Liberalism and Conservatism. However, by that definition nearly every great man in history is a liberal. It is natural for those who believe they are superior to lord over those they consider inferior. It is as common in Liberals as it is in Conservatives. How many bible thumpers have knocked on people's door preaching that they will be damned in the eyes of god because the evils of their ways? How many conservatives have blown up liberal abortion clinics? how many right wing nut jobs have plot to raise in arm insurrection against their fellow citizens? Immodesty and intolerance is a sign of EXTREMISM. Which exists both for the left and the right. For every PITA fanatic there is one Conservative that is equally fanatic in their calling. Be it condemning homosexuality, to racism, to whatever.
I don't disagree with you but despite articulating a critical point I suspect you fail to understand it. IE: extremism is neither liberal nor conservative...it is simply extreme. For every "right wing nut" job in history there is an equally vociferous and dangerous "left-wing nut job." In retrospect, I kind of regret using the term"liberal" in my remarks but I was not speaking of extremists, in the sense you interpolated it to mean. And BTW if you read the posts from the OP on, it seems clear to me that this discussion was headed...even intended to head...in this direction from the very beginning. So what? It seems equally clear that this is, for some folks, an issue that piques interest and curiosity and discussion. Perhaps it is even a necessary element affecting the choices people make when considering "style." If it were not, the OP wouldn't have initiated it and/or no one else would have responded.

 

[nioh]

Reprise:

 

[whnay.]

Yummy