Mufflon, he doesn't. In the article he states clearly that he'd now have to call himself a pescetarian, or a flexitarian, which would of course be more accurate. But what that would not acknowledge is that he doesn't eat seafood in general, but only just this one species, an act that he's come to believe does not harm the environment or cause animal suffering. In both, he has a point, though I'm not convinced he's right on the second one. If I hear someone call himself a pescetarian, I assume he eats a broad range of seafood, and also dairy and eggs. That's not him at all; except for oysters he eats only what vegans eat, he writes. So there's not a precise label anymore that sums up his position. What comes through for me is that he, like people on veggieboards, has strong ethical beliefs and has made radical changes in the way he eats to live in accordance with those beliefs. To me he sounds like a good guy, albeit not a veg*n, not anymore.
Same here. Just the smell of seafood makes me want to vomit. I've never seen an oyster in real life, only on tv or in movies. No way I would ever want to eat one.
I don't think that's the ONLY reason people do not eat animals and eat plants. Sure, it brings up a good point, but, to me, it isn't just that an oyster or plant can't feel, but that it has lungs and a heart that pumps! Plants do not. So I do not think eating oysters is okay.Originally Posted by Joan Kennedy
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of reaction based on whether people think the idea of eating oysters is repulsive. But that doesn't really address the merits, if any, of the article that started the thread. It looks like the reactions are coming mostly from people who didn't even read the article, because the points it raised are barely being addressed here. It seems to me that the points raised in the article cut to the core of people's ethical reasons for not eating animal products. It asks, what if eating a particular animal product actually bypasses the concerns that prompted someone to take up a vegan lifestyle? A person might have a similar reaction to the ethics of eating meat (muscle tissue) that had been grown in a lab, reproduced from a few cells of some years-dead animal, or one that had not even been harmed in the process of harvesting those cells. So the question becomes, what's more important, continuing to call yourself a vegan for its own sake, or acting ethically in a way that consumes one kind of flesh but causes no harm to the environment, supports no inhumane practices, and causes no creature to suffer pain or misery? To me that is the big picture, and it's so much more significant than whether someone considers oyster meat "disgusting" per se.
but certain plants clam up too when touched. the matter here is whether they can feel pain/are sentinent.Originally Posted by nontoxicglue
Not only does it have a heart, but when you prod the oyster, it clamps up to stop itself from getting eaten. It does it because, like cows, pigs, and chickens, it does not want to die. Who are we to decide whether they can feel or not? If one is a Vegan, then it should include all animals regardless of how insignificant they may seem. Besides, they filter water and provide reefs for other sea critters.