English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-11-07 00:23:26 · 23 answers · asked by Chickoon 4 in Food & Drink Vegetarian & Vegan

23 answers

From my experience as a "flexitarian" before the term came to be, it is no different than many cultures I've encountered in my travels . . . vegetarians who eat fish and/or poultry . . . even the Buddhist suttras are non-committal about eating meat as part of a diet . . . and as a matter of ethical choice the suttras allow meat eating with some pre-condtions.

You will always have the strict and fanatical "defenders of the faith", but in most parts of the world and certainly in modern societies the growing recognition of moderation and well-balanced is gaining popularity and more adherents than strict veg*ns of "veg*ns of convenience" ever will.

What is somewhat but not totally lacking in the modern idea of flexitarian vegetarianism, and absolutely absent in the mindless veg*nism you find on this forum, is what the other cultures have known for centuries... diet, must be balanced with meditation and exercise.

Flexitarians are more akin to the thinking of the cultures that have been "flexitarians" for centuries.

2007-11-07 04:15:06 · answer #1 · answered by Meg 4 · 3 1

Sometimes it feels to me like a good way to get a lack of respect from both meat eaters and vegetarians. Personally, being a flex in that i almost always eat vegetarian and that i have given up dairy entirely i feel as though giving up dairy was very hard and giving up fish at this point would be relatively easy, if i were so inclined, so this feeling that flexatarians are somehow lazy lable seekers doesnt really seem apt to me. And similarly dairy and egg consumption are both pretty bad for the animals involved (unless you raise your own chickens or have your own dairy animal) so why would vegetarians who still do dairy or eggs be embraced by the veg community and flexatarians not? do you honestly think its better than fish just because you are eating the actual flesh of the animal? this strikes me as mild denial. We all do what we feel is the best option for us based on our specific moral, and dietary needs and wishes, and the community should be completely embracing of all types, every veg who just posted an anti-flexatarian comment should be absolutely ashamed.

2007-11-07 12:54:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Its a made up word and doesn't really make any sense....a vegetarian who eats some meat...

errr, isn't that a meat-eater.

Am i a flexi-catholic because i walk past a church every so-often ?

I find it causes more confusion than clarity. Thats because its not a dictionary word and so people do not identify with it.

What possible use can it have other than an attempt to associate with vegetarian by using the same ending ?

If you want to be a vegetarian, great, hop on board. But if you want a label that makes you sound like a vegetarian, please leave well alone.

Even the fact that you've posted the question in the V&V section somehow tries to "create" a link to vegetarianism that isn't there.

No doubt Skully is referring to me. Actually, i've never said I am a "strict vegetarian". In fact, the only time i've used the phrase "strict vegetarian" is to denounce it saying there is no such thing so you will never have seen me claim to be a strict vegetarian. Once again, another diliberate mis-quote. "codpiece" - very mature

2007-11-07 12:07:06 · answer #3 · answered by Michael H 7 · 1 3

I think any reduction in meat consumption is good. However, I wish they wouldn't use the words "flexitarian" or "semi-vegetarian", as they give other people a false impression of veg*ns.

If "flexitarians" eat this way because they simply don't like meat, or they are trying to cut down on saturated fat and cholesterol, I understand. What I don't understand is the ones who do it for environmental or animal welfare reasons. If you know meat is harmful, why eat it even sometimes?

2007-11-07 08:55:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 5 3

A flexitarian is just a fancy way of saying omnivore. A flexitarian is not a vegetarian so this question does not really belong here. I say to each his own.

2007-11-07 11:18:03 · answer #5 · answered by La Vie Boheme 7 · 3 3

I think it's good that they are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat, but I think it's ridiculous to give themselves a name 'flexitarians'?? That's just silly. They are still omnivores like a whole lot of the population.

2007-11-07 12:34:21 · answer #6 · answered by coyote_windsprint 2 · 1 2

I'm intrigued what is a flexitarian ?

Is it someone who is veggie but eats fish?

2007-11-07 08:26:50 · answer #7 · answered by Doodle 6 · 2 0

Personal Freedom of Life Choices.

2007-11-07 09:13:49 · answer #8 · answered by Celtic Tejas 6 · 3 0

Good for them. I think any decrease in meat consumption is a good thing! However, I would think that if they only rarely eat meat that it would make them sick. My daughter is a flexitarian, and every time she eats meat it makes her sick. She says it's worth it, though :D

2007-11-07 09:47:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Here are some lovely articles dear . . . I've been a flexitarian vegetarian for years and so are most of the people I know. At least those that have a life. You find very few of the ilk of the fanatics you find on the V&V board, including that Cornwallian, anit-social, codpiece that proclaims himself a strict veggie but sells hay to slaughter houses to fatten cattle.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52501
http://nutrition.about.com/od/guestarticles/a/flexitarian.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/

2007-11-07 09:18:12 · answer #10 · answered by Skully 4 · 5 5

fedest.com, questions and answers