|
« Rosenblog Opinion Review, Vol. 29 |
Main
| James Kim, And The Low Spark Of High Tech Boys »
Unlike PETA's Lettuce Ladies, I'm Pro-Choice On Meat
December 13, 2006
And That Includes Horse Meat UPDATED: The International Herald Tribune reports today that - inspired by movie sensation Borat, that daffy fake Kazakh documentarian with a crush on silicon implant-shedding actress and PETA Lettuce Lady Pamela Anderson - two lettuce bikini clad protestors took to anti-meat advocacy in the main square yesterday of Kazakhstan's capital, Almaty. 'Lettuce ladies' wear lettuce leaves and encourage people around the world to eat a vegetarian diet....Regarding the two activists in Kazakhstan Tuesday, PETA said in a statement that "The scantily clad beauties are asking the people of Almaty to mark the New Year by switching from dishes like beshbarmak (horse meat and noodles) and zhambas (baked sheep's head) to healthy and humane meatless alternatives." Yet despite the engaging novelty of simultaneously invoking "Borat's" Kazakhstan and lissome Lettuce Ladies, quandries arise around exortations toward full-on meatlessness. The protest reminds us that the message of animal rights protestors on diet, no matter how cleverly packaged, rarely heeds more adult and negotiable concerns such as the quantity of meat eaten, or the varying caloric loads of different meats and manners of preparation. Instead, the message is preachy and extremist. Meat is murder. Don't eat meat. Ever. Meat bad. Vegetables good. Human rights for chickens. Now. Fish are people too. Beware venal "speciesism." And so forth. PETA's splashy and strident message aims for impressionable teens looking to make a statement with their "lifestyle choices," and the approach will continue to win a certain number of adherents to strict vegetarianism. However, there's a far more sensible public information campaign already underway, backed by numerous health organizations and designed to actually gain traction with moderately-inclined members of the public - ones open to persusasion but not moralistic hectoring. We know the themes quite well already, and they're important ones. Eat less meat, more vegetables and whole grains; carbs have their place; sweets and fats should be enjoyed sparingly. Exercise is essential. Sadly, government has chosen to get involved in dietary advice far beyond legitimate and very basic public education on the food pyramid and medical research; extending so far as to ban transfats or (on purported moral grounds) foie gras in restaurants. All of which is sheer Nanny State overreach. People are grown-ups, and can decide for themselves. However, for non-profits and far more importantly, for "significant others," it's wise to encourage eaters who typically have meat as part of lunch and dinner to enjoy a meatless entree for either meal at least five times a week, or preferably seven. And to substitute fish or seafood for meat on some of those other occasions. Celebrate vegetarian entrees, without demonizing either meat, or the good people of Kazakhstan or Mobile. A new group could deliver this message with perhaps some of PETA's flash but none of its extremism. Let's call this entity..........People Unbound by Dietary Dogma. Or PUDD, to you and I. The second issue raised by PETA's chilly nearly-nudes in Almaty is ethical. People are - and God willing, shall remain - free to eat horse meat. As they have done for many years in France and other European countries. Myself, I'm in no hurry to sample either beshbarmak, kazi, zhal, or any other variations of Trigger On A Plate. But for Euro-activists to parachute into Kazakhstan to lecture the locals on their backward, immoral dietary choices, fairly smacks of cultural imperialism. Which apparently is A-OK if the intent is to restrict rather than enhance freedoms. TECHNORATI TAGS: BORAT, KAZAKHSTAN, PETA, HORSE MEAT, LETTUCE LADIES, PRO-CHOICE, VEGETARIANISM, DIET, HEALTH> Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 13, 2006 07:15 PM Comments:
Mr. Rosenberg, On the basis of this column, you appear to be a moral relativist: someone who believes that right and wrong are simply a matter of personal choice, or perhaps relative to the culture in which one lives. Hence your comments about the message of Lettuce Ladies being "preachy and extremist" and, when applied to Kazakhstan, being "cultural imperialism". I'm guessing that you do not adhere to moral relativism when it comes to matters like, say, female genital mutilation, child pornography, racism, and flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers to promote one's religious beliefs. You probably believe that some or all of these practices are plain wrong and should be universally condemned and perhaps even banned. If that's the case, then you should recognize that there's nothing inherently misguided or illogical about the idea that some dietary habits are immoral and should be universally condemned or even banned. If you disagree, as you do, with the idea that it's immoral to eat meat, then you should debate the arguments of those who differ in their opinions. Labelling them "extremists" or "cultural imperialists" is just name-calling. The fact that PETA often seems more interested in publicity stunts and slogans than in reasoned debate doesn't mean that reasoned debate isn't necessary. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in "On Liberty", unless we understand and engage seriously with the arguments of those who hold other points of view, we will not understand the strengths and weaknesses of our own position. Here's one reasoned argument that you might like to sink your teeth into: How correctly to choose a diet? Smooth dump of weight in fact is more safe for an organism than sharp? WBR LeoP Posted by: Pharmacist at February 1, 2007 10:07 AMPost a comment
|
|
| Site design by Mystic Sludge Design© | |