Talk:Flexitarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Vegevenient
Where did vegevenient come from? Google has no results, though it does have some for flexitarian. Eurleif 09:03, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I haven't heard of it either. Maybe we should delete it? MShonle 09:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- All right, I've removed it. Eurleif 18:27, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Inflexible
As an NPOV issue in this article we should be careful not to call vegetarians inflexible. The idea is that a flexitarian is flexible about their own practice; not that they are a flexible person. For example, a vegetarian with their heart set on Indian food but ends up going to a Mexican restaurant because that's where their friends want to go would be a flexible about what they eat too. (Eating a bean burrito when you wanted channa massala is sign of flexibility many vegetarians have, in fact.) MShonle 09:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
What about flexitarians who are driven by ethical concerns? They seem to be completely unmentioned, although I know of many. People, for example, who only eat meat produced in what they consider to be an ethical manner, often leading them to be effectively vegetarian for cost/convenience purposes or because they cannot get hold of meat they are happy to eat. Interestingly, well-informed British ethical flexitarians may eat eggs (obviously not battery), but not dairy products, as veal is a by-product of the dairy industry. Therefore, if you are eating dairy products and not veal, the calves get exported (at one point alive, I don't know if this is still true) to other countries who are less concerned about animal welfare, and hence may be slaughtered in a less ethical manner. If you're not eating veal for ethical reasons, you shouldn't consume dairy products, goes the reasoning.
- I question the neutrality of the statement "In addition, they may try to stick to a vegetarian diet but are often unsuccessful because they enjoy non-vegetarian foods." There are no references for this assertion, and the links provided do not hint that the word is used to refer to "failed vegetarians". Just as it is not appropriate here to characterize vegetarians as inflexible, flexitarians should not be characterized as lacking in dedication; the references suggest this diet is a conscious choice for those who practice it. Seusomon 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think this is a neutrality problem. The statement is either true or false and because the request to verify it has been removed I suppose that the term "flexitarian" is indeed also used to refer to those people. --Danogo 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- But how can you verify an assumption? The article goes no further than defining "flexitarianism" as "Flexitarianism is the practice of eating mainly vegetarian food." The last two sentences of the the first paragraph are nothing more than assumptions as to the personal reasons why people occasionally eat meat; they cannot be verified. Frankly, what should be asked is not whether such statements can be verified, but rather whether they should even be included. --Kmsiever 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree. It was a bad idea to use the "verify source" template. I remembered that some time ago a list of such assumptions was removed from this article because they were unsourced and I thought this might be a similar case, so I added "verify source" without thinking about it carefully. --Danogo 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have removed the statement that characterizes flexitarians as failed vegetarians. I do regard it as a neutrality matter (although relatively mild). As an analogy, consider a statement in an article about the game of checkers such as "In addition, many may attempt to play chess, but find it too intellectually difficult for them" - possibly true in some cases, but would seem more judgmental than informative or helpful to someone interested in checkers. I think the summary of possible reasons for making exceptions to an otherwise vegetarian diet given at the beginning of the article is accurate and adequate. Finally, the term "flexitarianism" (with its -ism ending) would seem, just by its form, to denote a conscious philosophy, deliberate practice, or point of view, rather than just an accidental result of attempting to do something else and failing. Seusomon 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for doing that. --Kmsiever 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A vegetarian who occasionally eats meat
I would rather say person x is an 'occasional meat eater'. I don't think this justifies the use of the word 'vegetarian' because it would in fact be misleading. A vegetarian doesn't eat meat, therefore, someone who does, occasionally, eat meat, cannot be described as a vegetarian. It's like saying 'a non-smoker who occasionally smokes'... it doesn't make sense. LIllIi 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about "semi-vegetarian" who occasionally eats meat, as a compromise? Runa27 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about nothing? If you have a problem with the definition, contact the American Dialect Society. The quote used here is what they defined it as, not what we did. --Kmsiever 12:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with either example. A non-smoker who occasionally smokes is perfectly cognizable, in contrast to a smoker, which is assumed to be someone who regularly smokes. --Delirium 05:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's fully understandable. I knew a guy who was a Christiest, an athiest for every religion except christianity.
[edit] Definition
This article does not quite define what a flexitarian really is. I am a vegetarian, but was exposed to meats during fetal development (many are not). Therefore I can eat mat, but generally choose to do so only to avoid offending another (ex. an employer invites me to a steakhouse to talk about a contract). Most flexitarians are in a similar situation. - Tom Tolnam 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you count that offered by the ADS in the second paragraph. --Kmsiever 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
