The most interesting recent comment — by far — on this blog was the following statement by Troy about a week or so ago:
“Please don’t take this as negatively as it may sound, but, being a voracious omnivore… I am not critical of people for making the choice to not eat meat, or just not red meat, or only free-range meat, or, only meat that died of natural causes… Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that…
But, I do feel sorry for them. That’s not meant to be as arrogant, accusatory, or holier-than-thou as it sounds, it’s simply a truthful statement. I know that they (vegetarians/vegans/pescaterians/lactose intollerant) don’t need or want to be felt sorry for, but, I truly do. Going through life tasting everything, including the forbidden fruit, makes me a richer person. I don’t care what it is, if there’s a culture on the planet that treats it as food, I’ll eat it.”
What is wonderful about this comment is that Troy is floating the idea that one person’s likes or dislikes is based on the negation of another person’s likes or dislikes.
I thought it would be interesting to explore alternative viewpoints that push Troy’s central premise that “I feel sorry for you if you do not like the things I like.”
So here is an example of the sort of thing Troy is saying, recontextualized:
“Please don’t take this as negatively as it may sound, but, being a voracious homosexual… I am not critical of people for making the choice to not make love to men, or just not really cute men, or only men that work out a lot, or, only men that kiss really well… Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that…
But, I do feel sorry for them. That’s not meant to be as arrogant, accusatory, or holier-than-thou as it sounds, it’s simply a truthful statement. I know that they (heterosexuals, Catholics, breeders) don’t need or want to be felt sorry for, but, I truly do. Going through life tasting everything, including the forbidden fruit of another man’s love, makes me a richer person. I don’t care what it is, if there’s a culture on the planet that treats a man as meat, I’ll ‘eat’ him.”
Given that this is pretty much a direct transcription of Troy’s rhetorical stance, I’m pretty sure he will agree with the above.
But you are MORALLY compelled, not as a preference (that you just don’t like the taste of meat, not because they are ‘killed’), to be a vegan, right? Whereas homosexuals may not be morally compelled to be homosexuals, but as a preference. So I don’t think this works as a parallel comparison.
The question is, if you are morally compelled to be a vegan, what is your ideal world view—for everyone else to feel morally compelled to be vegans? If so the omnivores will not agree with your view…
Thank god we (at least you, Troy and me) neither need to eat animals nor humans to survive. I don’t know how I would act when the only way to survive would be to eat men.
I can’t say I wouldn’t, since I simply don’t know.
To me it is a big luxury that we don’t really know how hunger feels like. My parents still remember, my mother for example stole foul onions to survive. So to me it is still a wonderful luxury to be able to try all wonderful tastes and flavours.
Sometimes when I am having such a simple thing like bread and butter I think of you Ken and I am sad, because I can’t share this wonderful taste with you, because there would be no way – as far as I know – for you to enjoy this. Perhaps I even feel sorry, but I only feel sorry because I can’t share with you.
As far as I got Troy, he is so happy about the chance to learn about any kind of food in a different culture (and here I am totally with him) and he feels sorry about not being able to share with you. He is not sorry for you. Since feeling sorry for you, would be showing disrespect and I am sure Troy didn’t want to do that. 😉
@Troy: I am hopefully right… 🙂
Dagmar, in that sentence I was using ‘eat’ as a sexual metaphor (I’ve gone back and put the word in quotes to clarify). I wasn’t thinking at all of cannibalism, although I admire your free-ranging imagination!! By the way, I wake up every morning at home to really delicious toast with yummy soy spread, which I love passionately. I love food and am not into self-denial.
The reason I wrote the post was that Troy crossed the exact line into disrespect and condescension described at the end of Dagmar’s comment. He didn’t say “I feel sorry I can’t share with them.” He said “I feel sorry for them.” He may simply have misspoken, and I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Mari, there is an ethical component to be sure (as there is in everything), but there is also a very strong aesthetic component, and that (the aesthetic, not the ethical) is where I think Troy’s comment was misfiring. Things that I don’t see as food are not attractive to me as food, although I understand that they are attractive to others.
Perhaps a good analogy would be if you were offered a plate of dog. You might simply find it repulsive. Meanwhile the person who thinks of it as food might very well feel sad that they cannot share it with you.
But you would not feel sad that you weren’t eating it, because you are not experiencing the feeling of missing anything, just as Troy might not feel he is missing anything by not kissing a man.
For you to not eat dog does not mean that you are experiencing some sort of noble self-denial. For you, there is simply no food on that plate.
LOL – Ken, that is what I actually thought at the very first moment… Language can be difficult 🙂
LOL. I guess it’s all food for thought. 🙂
I love it! I need to follow this blog more often… Another week and I would have missed this completely…
I’m sorry if you saw that comment as “crossing the line” into condescension and disrespect as it wasn’t intended to be either.
I respect your decision to make your own choices. There is no respect here. Just as I would respect a person who decided to blind themselves in the name of God… But, I would still feel sorry for them for the inability to see… Whether they were happy with their choice or not.
Seriously, there are people that decide to do/not do things that you get great pleasure from. Sometimes it is a moral choice, a cultural choice, a health choice, an informed choice, an uninformed choice. It doesn’t matter what the choice is, you will feel sorry for those unable to experience things in your life that give you great joy.
Being PC about it, an not admitting this, is more disrespectful than a simple acknowledgement.
I don’t see it as disrespectful or condescending to feel sorry for me for not enjoying homosexual sex (I keep trying, just don’t “get it” 🙂 ) One very versed in the homoerotic arts may feel sorry for me for not knowing the joy of this. It doesn’t bother me that they would feel sorry for me, nor, would I consider that sorrow disrespectful or condescending, nor would I care if they voiced it. I would be more dissapointed if they pretended that their feelings were different than they really are.
Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe we’re all missing something great by not eating dog… But, does it matter if that makes the connoisseur of canine cuisine sorry that we can never truly experience the canid gustatory pleasures? Is it disprespectful or condescending for her to admit it?
I also strongly disagree that I even suggested that one person’s likes or dislikes are based on the negation of another’s. Finding bliss, wherever you find it, will make most people feel sorry for someone who can’t find the same bliss for whatever reason. It’s simple empathy and not a negation of another system of “likes”.
Independant of the obviously serious discussion here, I have to admit that your paraphrase of “tasting the forbidden fruit of another man’s love makes me a richer person” really did make me laugh out loud. Good thing that I’m alone at the moment…