A Vision investigation has made the shocking discovery that our student union bar, The Courtyard, has been selling ‘vegetarian food’ cross-contaminated with meat products. Our investigation found that the same oil that vegetarian chips (marked with a ‘V’ sign on the menu) were cooked in was also used to fry meat products such as spicy chicken pakora.
When we presented the results of our investigation to Lewis Bretts, YUSU Democracy and Services Officer, he made startling confession that, “the same oil was used to fry both meat products and chips”.
A spokesperson for the University of York Vegetarian Society has responded to these findings with anger, claiming that, “this kind of thing is as serious as an Orthodox Jew unknowingly eating things contaminated with pork”. Further adding that YUSU “are in the habit of treating vegetarians and vegans with contempt.”
Vision’s discovery follows a tip-off from an unidentified student who explained to us that the courtyard’s chips were in fact “regularly” cooked with meat products. She told us that upon finding this out she “felt sick” and “disgusted that they advertise chips as vegetarian when they are not”.
On further enquiry, it emerged that the courtyard had only one fryer, meaning that if they were to cook meat in this fryer, they would have to empty all oil from the fryer and clean the machine out before frying ‘vegetarian’ chips again. If this lengthy procedure was not carried out before frying chips again, cross-contamination would have happened.
Vision then conducted a secret investigation, ordering a range of foods in The Courtyard, including a dish with ‘spicy chicken pakora’ (which staff told us was deep fried) and chips. We found that both these products were served hot, and that before and after we ordered the chicken, chips were being regularly dished out to tables around us, leaving no time for the fryer to be cleaned.
When we presented these findings to YUSU who operate the bar, Lewis Bretts, having made his shocking confession, further added that “On behalf of the Courtyard Management I sincerely apologise to anyone affected by this issue.”
Bretts has been swift to act claiming that “As of this morning [04.03.2010], the fryer will be used solely for chips and new management procedures will be put in place to ensure that a similar situation will not occur in future.”
We were also told that The Courtyard initially had two fryers, however an upgrade in kitchen equiptment on January the 11th, meant the implemntation of only 1 fryer.
YUSU has further elaborated, claiming that, “the fryer cooks about 150 portions of chips per day, but just 5 chicken pakora portions”. They also points out that, “We did cook the chips with the same oil in the same fryer, but we have two baskets and the two products were never cooked in the same basket.”
The union also claimed that such practice was “not illegal” according to trading standards, but it was they conceded “bad practice”. They also extended a rather strange offer for people to have free tours around the kitchens.
However, such reassurances may not be enough for the hundreads of Vegetarians and vegans on campus who will inevitably feel betrayed and lied to by the Union. One second year vegan we spoke to asked “Why was it that Vision had to carry out an investigation for this to stop?”, further adding, “I will never ever eat at The Courtyard again”.
With a new menu in The Courtyard things look set to change, however this has been seen as a major setback to students on campus, and such irresponsible behavior by the union has put a major dent in YUSU relations.
‘this has been seen as a major setback to students on campus, and such irresponsible behavior by the union has put a major dent in YUSU relations.’
Laughing at this gross exaggeration. It’s such a minor, easily rectifiable issue. I guarantee that 90% or more of students really, really don’t care.
I agree that perhaps “major dent in YUSU relations” is a bit much, but I would disagree in the idea that it’s a “minor issue” Anon. The point isn’t that it’s easily rectifiable at all, it’s the fact that people thought it was ok for this to happen, even if it can be excused as a lack of communication between kitchen and front of house, it’s still showing lack of consideration for students. And even if 90% of students don’t care (which I doubt anyway, I’m sure there are many vegetarians who make up more than 10% of the student population), are you saying that if 10% of students care it therefore shouldn’t matter and shouldn’t be printed?
Macdonalds are not allowed to advertise their Veggie Burgers (which are vegitarian friendly) for precisely this reason. The Courtyard menus should simply remove the v
I am a vegetarian and I personally aren’t too bothered about this, but I know many of my friends who are vegetarians and will have eaten chips at the courtyard who will be absolutely disgusted by this.
What is more annoying is the fact the Courtyard thought it was acceptable and did nothing to change it until Vision found out.
This story is absolutely absurd. Consequence of eating chips cooked with chicken = no consequence. Number of extra chickens killed because of this = 0 chickens. Reason for vegetarianism = upheld. Number of high horses climbed upon = many.
Comment edited by a moderator.
Darn you moderator! Darn you to heck! That was funny!
@Facebook User…
As a vegetarian I understand what you’re saying, and it doesn’t particularly bother me that my chips have been cooked in this way. But then, if someone has made a conscious decision to not eat meat, and by extension desire to have all their food prepared in the absence of any meat products it’s really not your place to pass judgement. All this is besides the point to me anyway, because most serious vegetarians I know will always as if chips/vegetarian food is cooked in a different frier to meat – the reality is that this kind of thing is pretty common.
@Chris…
My favourite is the Vegi Deli sandwich… not vegetarian :)
@Jamie Gallimore
I think you’ll find it is actually your comments that are “absolutely absurd”. It may clearly entail no consequence for or to you primarily as you’re obviously ignorant and overly self-involved; not everyone is vegetarian just to “save” more animals from a bloody death. People make a conscious decision to abstain from eating any part of a carcass and the residue of fried and semi-fried chicken certainly counts as that. The very thought for many of coming into contact with such small amounts has nothing to do with quantity. It is nauseating nonetheless. Just as you are free to be an idiot, others are free to choose what they put into their systems. The consequence for you may be pitifully insignificant or utterly null and void, whilst for some of us it is a question of ethics and our own psychologies. Once again it boils down to a basic sense of regard for other people – you clearly have none. And you’ve embarrassed yourself.
“This kind of thing is as serious as an Orthodox Jew unknowingly eating things contaminated with pork”.
That’s not really true is it? being a vegetarian isn’t the same as being part of a religion, I think that the vegetarian society take themselves too seriously. It’s not like the oil was made from meat, its merely touched meat. Vegetarians should relax.
I’m sure that alot of people would vote for a candidate who promised to take funds away from societies such as vegetarian society, whpare basically an organisation created to criticise the majority of people’s views.
With them saying that they only maybe do about 8 meat things in the frier anyway, I can see how having two friers is not a particularly viable option. It’s most likely a widespread issue, in which most places will take the “don’t care” option. In most cases when eating out, I believe that a fair bit of ignorance on the part of the consumer is assumed, and is probably mostly in the benefit of all parties involved. Besides, we are at the top of the trophic levels for a reason. As animals we have developed as omnivores, and there is significant evidence to suggest that our intelligence as a species is derived from our ability to get ourselves to the top of this trophic level. In essence, although maybe taking the “moral high ground”, vegetarianism is a step backwards in our development.
@”You’re clearly a moron”, which I think is a brilliant name by the way, however I think you deserve to have at least some sort of harsh words with your parents over their choice to name you that, if the quantity of cross contamination is absolutely not an issue, and merely contact with meat products is so disgusting, how can you not absolutely think the thought of breathing air that may have at one point been in contact with the flesh of another animal equally disgusting? Hell, I don’t complain when I get a beefburger that my beef has been cross-contaminated with horrible vegetables (eww).
@ “you’re clearly a moron”
My original post went on to say something else, something which made clear that the rest of the comment was a joke. But it got moderated, so now it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t say I’ve embarrassed myself at all. I mean, it’s not as if I’m so apologetic toward my standpoint that I have to hide behind a pseudonym.
The “natural omnivore” thing is not as straightforward as many people assume.
We have vestigial, carnivorous-looking eye teeth, but gorillas have ferocious
eye teeth, and are vegetarian. Our intestines, meanwhile, are far longer than one would find in an all-out carnivore, and in fact are SO long that they are
ideally suited to an exclusively plant-based diet. There’s also the fact that vegetarians – even if you allow for variables such as lifestyle – have lower rates of cancers and heart attacks, and live longer (as confirmed by the BMA, etc). This, again, suggests that human beings are “naturally” well-suited to vegetarianism.
To give the “Orthodox Jew” reference a bit more context, the statement we gave
to Vision about that was that there are: “at least five hundred vegans and
strict vegetarians on campus who wouldn’t want to eat chips or other food which
is cross-contaminated. For me, and plenty of others on campus, this kind of thing is as serious as an Orthodox Jew unknowingly eating things contaminated with pork”.
It is extremely disappointing to see the Union trying to claim that the cross-
contamination had only happened on a few occasions (when it was obviously
a regular occurrence), that the chips had been in a separate basket (as if
that makes any difference to where the oil goes), and that cross-contamination
“isn’t illegal” (as if that makes it right).
One can’t stand next to a fryer all week, checking what goes into it, so a
lot of this comes down to trust. If YUSU isn’t big enough, and honest enough,
to hold its hands up and simply say, “Yes, we completely messed up – no excuses
– we’re sorry”, then many vegans and strict vegetarians won’t trust the Union
to take this issue seriously enough not to allow meat to go into the wrong
fryer at some point in the future. It’s also worth bearing in mind that if
it hadn’t been for the Vision report no changes would have been made.
For most sudents, this issue doesn’t affect them at all on a personal level.
But for many students on campus meat cross-contamination matters a great deal,
and makes a huge difference about where, and/or with how much peace of mind,
we can eat on campus. This makes it all the more commendable that Vision has
has taken a minority issue seriously in its reporting.
Well done and thank you to Vision for its excellent investigation.
Veg Soc
@ Veg Soc:
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Humans also lack fermentation vats that would be present in strict vegetarianism. Yes, gorillas may have larger, more carniverous looking teeth, but our closest relatives, chimpanzees, are observed to be rather omniverous in the wild.
When it comes to the health side, there’s no denying that chemicals that are contained within vegetation are healthy for our bodies. And that those who have predominately meat-based diets, these compounds are broken down and re-devoloped up the food chain. I believe it’s more a case of a diet than absolution.
Personally I must say I was absolutely outraged on reading this story. Having once eaten the chicken pakora I found myself literally vomiting when I found out that this lovely chicken had been cooked in the same oil which had come into contact with chips, a vegetable based product. Feeling that I am as a person almost entirely defined by my dietary choices, I find it utterly revolting that I am unable to eat out without inevitably having some form of vegetarian cuisine literally forced down my throat. Much of the beef available in our current market comes from cows that come into regular contact with grass, a non-meat, this is simply unacceptable. I can sympathise with any vegetarians who may be upset by this, for even when they order a salad, it is likely that their food has come into contact with the hands of the kitchen staff, who are made of meat. I believe that this is all very, very important.
You talk a lot of balls Tim Henman…
SPLEH SILLY MEAT EATERS
For me the idea that chips were cooked in the same oil as the chicken pakora was an issue not because of a lack of meats but because of a dietary need. Gluten or wheat intolerance is something not approached by the courtyard’s menu so to be on the “safe” side I only ever eat the chips as that way i can be certain that they wont be coated in any kind of sauce, batter or wheat based product that could make me ill (fortunately my intolerance isn’t as severe so that little wouldn’t hurt me too much). This is an option many people with a gluten/wheat intolerance or ceoliacs would probably take when eating in courtyard and many other places on campus, however for some people the way the chips were prepared could result in a trip to the hospital to have their stomach pumped.
As such, it would be nice if so many people would be outraged by the lack of a clear gluten free option as there are to whether or not something has been in contact with meats, just so that some people could eat safely. Instead, I’ll just ask staff for the ingredients and cooking methods of everything on the menu so that I am better informed and no one has to get angry.
No 13: Length of intestines IS a major factor, our intestines are nothing
like those of a dog, and using technical terms doesn’t change the facts.
Chimps are omnivores, gorillas aren’t. Both have scary-looking teeth. Goes
to show that teeth (which many use as a sign that human beings are natural
meat-eaters) aren’t a great indicator – as the original comment said. We
shouldn’t be copying anything from chimps, anyway. They’re a right bunch of
aggressive, murderous, bloodthirsty little scamps.
“Redeveloped up the food chain”… You mean that things like folic acid
and vitamin C, eaten by animals, come through in their meat? Not true.
Things like protein come through, but you can get those from non-animal
sources. Even some champion bodybuilders are vegetarian.
The clinching argument on the whole diet-health thing is that vegetarians
have – as the Veg Soc statement above says – fewer heart attacks and cancers,
and live longer. Suggesting some kind of parity between eating meat and not eating meat is like trying to say smokers and non-smokers all have the same health. Many do, but there’s still a VERY strong pattern.
A member of Veg Soc.
I am vegetarian… and am not a member of Veg Soc because they are so militant… And this story just proves it. I must admit I would have been a little bit bothered by this, but only a little bit. As it’s not like your actually eating meat, yes they have been cooked in animal fat but thats the end of it. The meat content is a trace. I know it shouldn’t be marked as vegetarian if it contains even a trace of meat, so the simple suggestion… Remove the V, then the problem is solved; yes it limits what you can eat on campus as a vegetarian, but there’s always vanburgh or roger kirk that do proper vegetarian meals. At least eating meat not detrimental to your health in anyway, sure if you’ve been veggie for a while it might make you a little ill; but thats it. Whats the massive fuss and crying to YUSU about… A quiet word would have done just as well. And you know what… best philosophy – IF IN DOUBT, ASK!
The problem is that the V on menus whether certified by the Vegetarian society or not is a symbol of trust. Vegetarian’s should not need to ask if a V is present. Saying ‘I’m a veggie but…’ isn’t much of an argument because there are those that care and their views should be respected.
The V is not even just used by vegetarians but by those on restricted diets such as Halal or Kosher as a way of testifying that their meal will be free of improperly prepared meat. If the cross contamination meat in question had been pork and not chicken YUSU would have been in far greater trouble.
Post 18: “using technical terms doesn’t change the facts”.
…do you know what technical terms are for? They are for defining facts. Have you ever actually done any research, personally, into the matter, or is this just spouting something Veg Soc reckons? I suspect post 13 actually has done some research. You can’t seriously think there is ONLY one factor in determining dietary specialisations, and that single factor is length of intestines? That seems like a rather arbitrary one to stick to. But, since that is the only one that backs up your point, I can kind of see why you chose it. A scientist would tell you how you are guilty of a silly amount of “confirmation bias”.
@18: “They’re a right bunch of
aggressive, murderous, bloodthirsty little scamps.” Hmph, the same could be said about many humans through the course of history. We’re just animals, after all.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
And the technical terms don’t change the facts behind what I was saying. Evidence to prove vegetarianism is always misconstrued to say as much. And, when it comes to teeth, if you read the conclusions in aforementioned article…they aren’t mentioned. The teeth are in part proof for both cases (omnivorous teeth structure, however closeness dictates a vegetarian diet. Humans, over time, with our superior intelligence to other species, have learnt how to eat originally toxic foods, such as wheat and beans.
I have never argued that Vegetarianism is not a *healthy* diet. It is, clearly. I’m just saying it’s not our natural diet.
I find it hopelessly frustrating that every time a vegetarian issue is brought up, vegetarians are always challenged to justify their own life choice. We saw the same problem recently in the elections for Women’s Officer, with feminists constantly challenged to justify their own existence before being ‘allowed’ to get stuff done. It is very easy to see that vegetarianism itself is not in question here; the article simply points out that The Courtyard has made a false claim on its menu that will upset a large number of people, regardless of the justification for or the ‘unnaturalness’ (a very shaky concept anyway*) of their beliefs. I wish that Veg Soc would stop rising to the bait here, when the best response to these trolls would be to say they have failed to understand the article.
*Philosophy for the dummies on this comments thread, particularly Lee Farren: natural does not mean right (see also: rape, incest).
@Jamie Gallimore.
you’re right, i’m a total coward and am in full awe of your bravery in confronting our terrible green barbarian hordes head on. maybe i’ll sacrifice a cabbage in honour of you.
you’re fantastic at assuming things, i’m sure you’ll get very far in this world. i do wonder if you’ve ever considered that this might be a debate about what people stand for as opposed to who they are. once again, your self-involvement shines through like the sunlight on john terry’s backside. i’ll play your precious game and go on to assume that the moderator was offended by your attempts at humour and therefore did the virtual world a rather large favour. modern life is punishing enough as it is
I suspect Mr. Farren was not arguing that natural = right. He was just saying it was natural. To me it seems he was arguing against the rather hokey science used by Veg Soc rather than the conclusions Veg Soc reaches. He argues only from a technical standpoint, and as far as I can see is not arguing against vegetarianism.
In fact I’m not sure anyone here is proposing that vegetarianism is “wrong” or that people shouldn’t be vegetarian. Certainly there is some resistance to a perceived over-reaction to a rather trivial matter, but that’s a wholly different kettle of tofu fish shapes to challenging the core belief systems of strangers.
Wow, YCA Moron, you certainly are a rather disagreeable person, aren’t you? The point I was making is that it’s easy to call someone a moron over the internet anonymously, it happens a billion times a day.
I wasn’t confronting your “terrible green hordes”. I like vegetarianism. I was one for myself for a while. My original post was intended as a way of pointing out,in jest, that it’s just *possible* for people to sometimes over-react to things. The latter half was an extreme version of the point proposed by the first half, indicating that the statement on the whole, while still making a point, should not be taken at face value. In other words, it was satire. However, the “extreme” portion of the comment was removed, so what was left was an apparently bigoted first half, which is not what I originally meant at all.
Considering how little I have actually said, you seem rather quick to judge what you think I am saying. I have made no assumptions at all. I have at no point said that veggies are wrong, or that they should not be entitled to a point of view, or anything else for that matter that might indicate my own “self-involvement”. I intended no offence, though it seems that you intend to cause quite a lot.
I respectfully decline your offer of a cabbage sacrifice, I’ve already eaten, thank you.
No laws have been broken – this is something that happens in almost every restaurant. I love the Nachos.
Calling all vegetarians and vegans! Please resist the temptation to engage
with any of the above anti-vegetarian comments. If you make your case (nature,
better health, animal sentience, water and energy resources, yadayada), then
the very act of making your case will get you labelled as a militant by those
who can’t find a better way to win an argument. And if you stop making your
case having already got drawn in, then it looks like you never had any proper
arguments to make. The best thing is to avoid this pincer movement in the
first place. However weak an anti-vegetarian argument is (and there are about
ten comments above which I want to answer), don’t get drawn in.
If you get it right, meat-free food can be amazing, and on average veg*ns are
indeed healthier and slimmer (and more intelligent!). Also, it feels good to
get the animal and eco stuff off your conscience a bit, and to know that you’re
not causing as much harm as before. Vegetarianism/veganism aren’t ultimately about arguing – they’re about having a much nicer time! If other people don’t want that for themselves, and if they want to judge you negatively, then that’s
a shame for them (and an even bigger shame for animals and the environment),
but there’s probably not much you can do about it.
I won’t write on here again, and I hope other vegetarians/vegans won’t either.
We don’t have to justify ourselves to anyone.
Hannah, don’t try to put words in my mouth. Veg Soc tried to say that humans are historically and anatomically herbivores. I mearly pointed to a scientific source in disagreement. Don’t try and make it seem like i’m pro-rape and incest, that is bordering on slander.
As an aside, I haven’t really tried to respond to the article because that’s not where my primary concern lied. I did so in my original post, and feel no need to elaborate.
To be quite honest, Mr. Bloxham has pretty much said what I’d need to, I never claimed that natural is right, the argument portrayed one of “what is natural”.
If any vegetarians or otherwise wish to believe my comments to be anti-vegetarian then you are mistaken.
2nd Veg Soc Member – I’d like to know on what grounds you consider my sources weak…
“If you get it right, meat-free food can be amazing, and on average veg*ns are
indeed healthier and slimmer (and more intelligent!). Also, it feels good to
get the animal and eco stuff off your conscience a bit, and to know that you’re
not causing as much harm as before.”
I resisted the temptation to get involved until now, but this is just ridiculous. I don’t dispute people’s right to choose what they eat, but where on Earth have you got the idea that vegans are on average healthier, slimmer and more intelligent? Even if it were the case that vegans were on average slimmer, surely that would mean their diet was insufficient. There are well-recognised problems with vegetarians and vegans not getting enough iron in their diet. Your claim that vegans are on average more intelligent is beyond ridicule and verges on the kind of pseudo-science that gave rise to notions of white racial superiority. Furthermore, I can tell you that the ‘animal stuff’ isn’t on my conscience; why would I have a problem eating an animal that isn’t aware of its own existence? It’s called the food chain. I reiterate that everybody has the right to choose what they consume, but don’t tell me I’m less intelligent than you or that I should have an unclear conscience because I eat meat.
Not true about iron! All the dietary bodies and the British
Medical Association all confirm that that’s a myth.
ok… I’m not a vegetarian any more, and to be honest even when i was that wouldn’t have particularly bothered me (it was more i didn’t like meat), but that’s not the main issue. Whether you agree with vegetarianism or not, the point is that something was being advertised as vegetarian when many vegetarians wouldn’t be happy to eat it if they knew how it was cooked. The Courtyard was wrong to do so, and should either stop advertising them as veggie, or invest in another fryer, thus allowing everyone to make a choice they feel happy with about what they eat. It’s a matter of consumer rights and possibly, (I’m not entirely sure)a legal matter – not a moral debate over the rights and wrongs of eating meat.
In terms of human evolution and vegetarianism, meat-eating has played one of the most important roles in the evolution of our species. Our earliest ancestors were vegetarian, but in order for our brains to be as large as they are today, a reduction in size and energy requirement of other organs in our body had to happen. This could only occur in the stomach and intestines. If this reduction was to work, early humans diet had to change so that humans could take in smaller amounts of food, but which had to be fat and energy rich foods, like meat.
So our brains increased in size and our sentience, or consciousness, is an unexpected offshoot. Its this offshoot that has allowed the vegetarian inside all of us to come full circle, as we are now intelligent enough to know which fruit and veg to eat to have a healthy diet.
So in our modern times, vegetarianism is just a matter of personal choice, but we all have meat to thank for being able to recognise that there even is a choice!
Yes, the legal situation seems a bit dodgy. You know that lop-sided, curly
“V” symbol? Well, that’s a trademark of the national Vegetarian Society.
They call it “the seedling symbol”. The national Veg Society only allows
companies (food producers, restaurants, whatever) to use it when they pay
a fee and pass inspections. One of the main things they need to be inspected
for is meat cross-contamination. So basically either the Union has gone and
lied in order to get the trademark permission, or else – and this seems a
lot more likely – they’ve just done their own pretend version of the logo.
If you look at the Courtyard menu, then it seems to be a total fake. In
other words, it’s almost exactly the same as the official logo in design, but
a bit wobbly! Apparently the national Vegetarian Society get pretty fed up
with people doing those fakes, because it gives people the false idea that
there has been checking and accreditation when there hasn’t been, and it
deprives the society of the money to use it. Someone should send a copy of
the Courtyard menu to them, and see what they think. It definitely seems to
be a trademark infringement, and maybe it breaks the consumer rights stuff
which Josie just mentioned as well.
I think the intestine length is to do with putrefaction of meat. The (local)
Veg Soc statement only said that our intestine length is “ideally suited” to
plant stuff, and that the teeth thing is ambiguous. It didn’t even try to
say that we shouldn’t eat meat! And it only went on there in order to defend
against a claim that vegetarianism is unnatural. If the LGBT lot had put up
a defence against a claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” they wouldn’t get
vilified. Maybe it’s only vegetarianism which brings out this level of hatred.
And that thing about reduction of organ size sounds more like a theory than
anything proven, and the ironic twist at the end is SO embarrassing. People should calm down. It’s all SO boring, anyway. Who cares if vegetarians
want to eat vegetarian food, or say it’s not unnatural, or be nice to animals
or reduce their carbon footprint, or whatever? How is that anyone else’s
business? That earlier comment’s right – they don’t have to defend themselves.
And for Lewis Bretts to say that the cross-contamination only happened a few
times is rubbish, by the way. He must think everyone’s stupid. And even with
a new fryer, he probably shouldn’t be using that trademarked logo until he
has got it checked out.
@ Anon, sorry to get off topic, but homosexuality is unnatural in the most literal sense – why do you think two men or two women can’t have a child together by themselves? And using a woman as a ‘surrogate’, or using a sperm donor doesn’t prove that they can, FYI – rather it proves my point. Yes, people have a right to do what and who they want within reason, but homosexuality is undisputably biologically unnatural.
@ badger hunter
Nature is not uniform nor can it be sweepingly reduced into black and white. It is a fact of evolution. Homosexuals do not consciously choose to whom they are sexually attracted (just as heterosexuals and bisexuals do not) and nor can you ignore that the “unusual” hormonal balance to which they are exposed in their mothers’ wombs is attributed to biological factors. To return to the matter in hand, in much the same vein that evolution has given rise to anomalies such as this, it could well be argued that vegetarianism represents a further step in the evolutionary chain; mankind has ruled the earth and the fate of other species for several centuries already. As a system of morality and ethics has involved within the human consciousness, “progress” can now find itself in the realisation that butchery, bloodshed and inhumane (let the irony of this term not be lost on us) slaughter is unnecessary and immoral.
The scientists may well scoff at such an argument, but it is no disgrace to believe in the soul and desire something for it that is not damnation.
Yes they do choose to whom they are sexually attracted, don’t tell me that there is an irresistible compulsion on people to go and snog others. We aren’t robots, we are capable of making decisions. A man knows that his ultimate function is to impregnate a woman and hence play his part in the life cycle. Likewise, a woman knows she is supposed to give birth and hence needs the sexual input of a man. The consciousness allows us to know these things; it is perfectly possible for people to decide that they should be attracted to the opposite sex if it is not an immediately obvious feeling. And if it isn’t, it will largely be due to an absence of the relevant hormones in the necessary quantities. It is a product of over-liberalising society that anybody can suggest that homosexuality is natural.
@badger hunter
Millions of gay men and women around the world suffer abuse, discrimnation, imprisonment, the death penalty, being cut off from friends and family etc due to homophobia. I wonder why they don’t “choose” to start being attracted to members of the opposite sex and fit in with your narrow minded view of sexuality. Probably because who we are attracted to and who we fall in love with is not a simple choice but indeed biological and determined before birth. Gay teens account for half of all suicides and attempted suicides of teens in Britain (one of the most “tolerant” countries in the world). It is because of homophobic attitudes like yours that this is the case.
To say it is not natural is the most invalid point ever. Hardly anything in today’s world is natural from the computer you’re typing on to the plastic encased, factory farmed meat that you eat. What is natural is attraction, love and compassion to others of your own species, be it man or woman. It might be an idea to talk to some gay people and let them explain their experiences and feelings to you so you can begin to understand that it is not a choice but a fact of life.
Mine is not a homophobic attitude – I have family members who are homosexual, in fact. But even they would not deny the reality that they cannot have children unless they mate with a member of the opposite sex. To deny this is utterly stupid. To say that homosexuality is not natural is a very valid point. I don’t deny that the computer I’m typing on is not natural, but the crucial point is that it is a man-made product, rather than a living entity. Nature surely includes in its body of connotations the fact of reproduction, and in humans this cannot be achieved by two members of the same sex. Ergo, homosexuality is unnatural. Even if homosexual people don’t possess the desire to copulate with a member of the opposite sex, that isn’t to say they aren’t capable of it, biologically. I can see I’m not going to be able to persuade you, but I believe my point to be completely valid. As with vegetarianism I believe people have a right to carry out consensual homosexual activity and they shouldn’t be punished or their activities criminalised – that was not what I was saying and you childishly implied that it was. Instead my point is that homosexuality by its very definition is biologically unnatural.
comment has been moderated
While I don’t want to get in an argument with you, I still find it very offensive and homophobic that you can say someone’s feelings and attractions are not natural, that “they do choose to whom they are sexually attracted” and “it is perfectly possible for people to decide that they should be attracted to the opposite sex if it is not an immediately obvious feeling”. You are trivialising a huge part of people’s lives and implying they should try and not be gay or bisexual when this is imppossible.
Sexuality has nothing to do with biology.
What on Earth? This is an article about crimes against vegetarianism by the Courtyard, can we get back to that please?
What does unnatural mean? Let’s speculate that it refers to a thing which is not natural. How can something possibly not be natural? The sphere of nature encompasses everything that has ever existed and everything that continues to exist. This includes me, you, the sun, supernovae, neutron stars, neutrons. It includes tulips, kittens, Bill Bailey, eyeglasses, digital watches, 1,8-bis(dimethylamino)naphthalene, and 1987 DG-20 Casio electric guitars (set to mandolin). Everything. The assertion that, for example, a blu-ray disc of Ghostbusters 2 is unnatural simply because it is man-made makes the implicit assumption that humans are somehow outside of nature, that we have ‘opted out’ of nature with our concrete and our silicon.
This is patently ridiculous.
Humans are part of the natural order; they are part of the environment. They learned how to make things; they made them; they made them better, until the point in time known as “right now”. A completely natural process, we are simply standing at the most recent point in this series of events. To recap; there is no ‘opposite’ of natural. Perhaps we might consider something to be man-made, or artificial, but this is not the ‘opposite’, not ‘unnatural’. It is simply a specific subset of natural, useful for specifying items that can’t be plucked off trees or mined from the ground. In the Venn diagram of Everything That Exists, Ever, synthetics would be a smaller circle within the all-encompassing circle of ‘nature’. Oh, and things that are ‘natural’ are not inherently better than their artificial alternatives.
And besides, one only has to take a short stroll around campus to see male ducks ‘in the mood’ with one another. Still think it’s “unnatural”?
Ok, you’ve pretty much exhausted the failed comparison with homosexuality. You’re discovering what many a philosophy first year finds out to their embarrassment in seminars: comparisons between different ethical issues often muddy the water even more. I’m sure badger hunter is hanging his head in shame now (or at least he ought to be). Jamie Gallimore’s post above is quite good. I prefer a shorter version: ‘natural’ seems like a very simple concept to use, but in fact it’s one of the most complicated.
I don’t know why people are so critical of vegetarians. I suspect that often deriding vegetarians is part of a defensive, diversionary strategy to put off having to think about the morality of your own actions.
“Good”, “right”, “healthy”, “fresh”, “natural”, “pure” – they’re all
virtual synonyms. Saying that homosexuality and other things are
“unnatural” is just a coward’s way of saying that they’re “wrong”.
It’s a sneaky and deniable way of being derogatory, just as saying
war or rape are part of “nature” are deniable ways of defending them.
“I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m just saying it has always
happened, and it’s a part of nature”. Nature implies inevitable
implies moral absolution.
Let me begin by saying that I love this country. I have been living here for 4 years now, and I recognise that it offers a very high standard of living and, overall, a very good cultural environment.
That said, the UK does have one particularly big problem: political correctness. Here, every issue is blown out of proportion. Whoever stops to say “hold on guys, maybe this is not really offensive/worthy of attention” is called naive, or even a bigot.
Hannah Boast, whoever disagrees with you is not necessarily stupid and unable to understand an article. Some of us just pause to think and remember that there are much more important things in life. So your chips came in contact with a tiny bit of meat. So what? You wouldn’t even know if weren’t told. Just pause to think: there are wars going on, people die everyday, there is crime, poverty, illnesses… And some people seem to think that the fact that their chips were “contaminated” is worthy of taking offense.
In short: relax a bit guys! You all have it very well – remember this and stop taking offense at the slightest issue.
A.
A Catsambas, I know that there are more important issues in the world than the contamination of my chips, but I’m not convinced by the sliding scale idea of moral significance. None of the moral issues in my life are significant compared to the incredible sufferings of other people in the world. How can I, or even should I, begin to care about, say, my vegetarianism, being kind to my friends, recycling…when there are earthquakes and genocides and famines… But if we dismiss morality in our own lives as totally insignificant in the face of the great tragedies of the world, our whole privileged, Western lives would start to seem, well, meaningless. There is no need to go so far along the road of self-denial! Your point is valid and I’m not spending every waking hour panicking about the possibility that I might have consumed a scrap of chicken. Still, I think it is ok to be kind of annoyed about my principles being violated without my consent.
Actually, I’m not sure if this is a tiny issue. The amount of meat I might have consumed is tiny, but the principle of standing against the exploitation of all nonhuman life is very significant. I’m not normally a campaigning vegetarian, I just let other people get on with things at the same time as cooking vegetarian meals for my friends in the hope that they will cook them for themselves, and in doing so reduce their meat intake. The comments on here really got up my nose because I dislike being told what to think.
Even if you think that vegetarians are wasting our time complaining about this, we’re not exactly doing you any harm unless you have a real love of chips that taste slightly of chicken.
Thank you, A. Catsambas. I think some of the vegetarian fundamentalists (that being, the ones who denounce omnivorism as unhuman or inhumane) fail to understand that there are definately much bigger issues than that of the vegetarian “plight” of the friers occuring in the world.
@Hannah Boast: People aren’t being critical of vegetarians for the majority of this article. Most of them are commenting in a very detached manner about how points brought up by vegetarians to defend themselves from what appear to absent attacks (read: attacks that haven’t happened) in what can only be described as a paranoid manner. In the same way, don’t attempt to take a moral high ground just because someone eats meat, and this doesn’t effect their obviously much lower and barbaric code of ethics. They can’t help it, it’s just “natural” to them.
Oh, I can’t say that now, it’s been removed from the list of words that mean anything. It is their custom, and their right as a human. As the great Lord Almighty, Bruce, himself once said “Hi-ho silver…awayyy”
“Actually, I’m not sure if this is a tiny issue. The amount of meat I might have consumed is tiny, but the principle of standing against the exploitation of all nonhuman life is very significant”
But eating chips cooked in used oil is not an action that contradicts your principle, as it is indirect. If you employ this logic, then you should realise that most of our actions harm someone, somewhere. When you buy flowers that were grown in exotic places, you are indirectly taking away drinkable water from people. When you use Barclays for your bank, you indirectly invest in the arms trade. When you took your place at York, 7 other people got rejected.
I am not a militant anti-vegetarian, and if it is against your principles to eat meat, then fair enough. You don’t have to explain yourself (although, of course, it is not uncalled for if people ask you why you oppose the practice, out of curiosity). But I think that eating chips cooked in meaty oil is too indirect to contradict your principle. But, of course, it is your right to feel however you wish.
Best,
A.
“Most of them are commenting in a very detached manner about how points brought up by vegetarians to defend themselves from what appear to absent attacks (read: attacks that haven’t happened) in what can only be described as a paranoid manner.”
Omnivore says vegetarianism is unnatural. Vegetarian defends, saying it’s isn’t unnatural. The omnivores perceive this as an attack on eating meat, which in
fact it wasn’t – it was just them being paranoid. And now anyone who points
this out is …. paranoid. And I’m being a paranoid extremist for posting
this, I guess. I give up. What a waste of time.
Magnificent joke…..
How do you measure the length of an intestine?
Swallow a tape worm.
Ha!
Ha!
Ha!
If it wasn’t for that helpful photo of the menu with the items helpfully circled in red, I’m not sure that I would believe this story…
Either eau rouge is being a comedian or just plain odd…and there are no red circles to tell me which! :(
I think he’s referring to the red circles in the screen grab at the top of the article.
I am also a vegetarian and my body has never been in a very good shape. Being a vegan can really make you much heathier.-:,