On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:17:45 -0400, Willondon
wrote:


Another way to categorize vegetarians is by motive. I see
(1) ethical - believe it is morally wrong to use animals;

There are at least two subsets of ethical vegetarians:

(1a.) those who believe it is wrong to use so much land to
produce meat while any people in the world are starving.

It's true that in general you can produce non-meat protein
with much less land but this does not account for marginal
land suitable to grazing but not raising crops. On the
whole, though, given modern meat production methods, it's
true. We raise lots of grain and feed it to animals,
getting less protein and calories back than if people had
eaten the grains directly.

(1b.) those who don't object to killing animals in order to
eat them (everything has to die sometime) but who do object
to the extreme cruelties of modern factory farming.

Think of the poor damned chickens confined in tiny cages all
their life! They're supposed to be running around in grass,
catching bugs, having a social life, etc.

It's similar for other livestock, maybe even worse. I
shudder with horror at the giant CAFOs (Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations) in which most pigs are now raised.
They're fellow-mammals, they're intelligent, and we stick
them in animal-concentration camps and wreak unspeakable
cruelties on them before we kill and eat them.

(2) dietary - do not believe certain foods are healthy in a diet;
(3) aesthetic - meats, seafoods or dairy do not appeal to them, or leave a
bad taste or unsettled stomach after eating.

Of course even with the same motive, there are differences of opinion as
to what should be excluded from a vegetarian diet.

Pat