Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
there is this one thai place i love that gives you the option of beef, chicken or tofu for almost all their dishes! so we go to places like that.
so if meat eaters don't like the meat option, they can just sit their nibbling on pork scratchings.
are for dogs! dog treats!
Really. I have friends who are vegetarian, so if we go out for one of their birthdays or something, we'll usually go to a vegetarian restaurant. Which obviously fair enough - they're vegetarian, it's their birthday and they want to go somewhere that will offer them plenty of choice. I don't have a problem with that.
However, I personally, and I know there are other meat-eaters who feel similarly, find it difficult to feel satisfied after a meatless meal, even if I don't feel particularly hungry afterwards. The only time I'd voluntarily eat something without meat, that I can think of, is a couple of eggs on toast or maybe some pasta, and that only ever feels like a snack.
Now if I go somewhere for my birthday which is predominantly a meat restaurant, I will expect there to be at least one vegetarian option on the menu for my non-meat-eating friends, and although the reasons for their vegetarianism will often (but not always) be deeper and more complex than my preference for meat, I nonetheless feel that I should be catered for if I wish to eat in a vegetarian restaurant as a result of circumstance.
Obviously there may be practical reasons for this not being possible, for example a lack of facilities available to provide meat whilst also keeping the other meals strictly vegetarian, but I feel that an effort should at least be made. Ultimately, my problem is, a vegetarian restaurant is not the strict opposite of a non-vegetarian one, or even, the vast majority of the time, one which specifically specialises in meat.
to learn to eat some meals without meat!
Do you find this offensive?
where I've had to visit a mosque. Ever.
a WOBO awards.
you know what i mean.
As opposed to MOBO - Music of Black Origin.
as obviously i don't mean to compare a serious issue like race with a trivial* issue like diet.
but still. a vegetarian restaurant is just a restaurant that specialises in a certain type of cuisine. demanding a "meat option" in one is like demanding a "curry option" in an italian restaurant.
*i am vegetarian.
i <3 you.
I know there are some vegetarian restaurants which provide, for example, both Indian and Chinese food. They are two different cuisines (or even, as is often the case, more).
It's also a far more dividing question: "Do you like vegetarian food?" as opposed to "Do you like curry?" or "Do you like pizza?". If you answer "No", to one of the latter, then that's just unfortunate. There are hundreds of other cuisines you enjoy, and if not, well you're probably just fussy and deserve everything you get. But if you take someone to a vegetarian restaurant, there is clearly a good chance that you're going to be limiting them in terms of what they actually like to eat.
that had no vegetarian food at all. i had to eat a burger :(
but they ran out of cider at 3pm, and i don't drink beer.
i prefer strongbow or kopparberg.
i can't afford to drink strongbow here though, i have to drink stuff that tastes like the Sam Smith's cider...
but cider is good!
McDonalds probably do something similar.
There are probably a fair few restaurants that really don't offer a genuine vegetarian option, but they're not in the majority, and I don't think they represent what people think of as what vegetarian restaurants are an alternative to, because, as far as I am concerned (you might want to pick me up on this, I don't know), vegetarian restaurants *are* an alternative, provided for vegetarians. It's not a culinary thing or a cultural thing (some cultures might produce only vegetarian food, but there is no culture inherent to the idea in general), so they should act as such.
mcdonalds doesn't do veggie burgers.
and burger king veggie burgers in the UK and very yummy but in canada they are gross. go figure. you lucky bums.
Spice things up a little with a delicious toasted deli roll with a spicy veggie patty made from blend of chickpeas with coriander and cumin, served with crisp lettuce and a squirt of Sweet Chilli and Yoghurt & Mint sauces". Seriously, don't go up against me when it comes to fast food, because I WILL WIN. KFC doesn't do a veggie option.
after you said they don't do anything vegetarian. And McDonalds refer to all their burgers as "patties", or at least they used to, so I think if you're just insisting that a burger must come in a round roll to be a burger, you're being a little unfair on the Spicy Veggie.
but not here in canada. sorry mister!
please tell me this isn't true,
But I did kind of account for that in my big post when I talked about veggie restaurants not offering meat options because they can't afford the facilities to do that *and* keep the veggie food actually vegetarian. I'm talking more about proper restaurants than fast food chains though.
Do restaurants tend to only have one pan/oven/whatever? If non-vegetarian restaurants can find the facilities to cook vegetarian food, I'm sure at least some vegetarian restaurants would be able to find the facilities to cook meat.
even though all but one meal was, and what was vegetarian had no trace of meat in it at all? That's just semantics.
Why are you being insulting? All I've done is tried bring into discussion something which isn't really considered, maybe because people think it's ridiculous like you clearly think it is, but maybe without good reason at all. I've said nothing personal against anyone, I've said nothing against vegetarianism in any shape or form, I'm merely offering an alternative view from a meat eater.
You haven't even offered an explanation why you have a problem with the idea. Nobody has. I think that it's because you disagree with the purpose of vegetarian restaurants. I see them as a practical institution - a place where vegetarians can eat and be offered the same variety as non-vegetarians. I think you see them as more of a moral institution. But I don't understand that, and I don't even know it's true, considering you haven't said it, I'm just trying to read between the lines.
I wasn't trying to be.
if they gave the option of meat. that's why they don't do it. a lot of vegan/vegetarians would not eat at the restaurant if there was a meat option.
Would their air suddenly become tainted as soon as they walked through the doors?
and i would, and have eaten in general 'non-vegetarian' restaurants.
but that does not disregard the fact that there are strict vegetarians/vegans who would be uncomfortable with their food being prepared/cooked in an environment containing meat, and so go to vegetarian restaurants to avoid compromising their own personal morals and/or ethics.
But like I said above, in general, I consider vegetarian restaurants to exist more for practical reasons than for moral ones. Would most people really disagree with that (and by "people", I guess I mean vegetarians)? That's what I'm talking about.
If there were a vegetarian who would not eat anything other than food which is bought from a vegetarian or vegan shop, grown on a vegan farm, cooked in a vegan kitchen, fine - places should exist for them to eat, socialise, etc just as much as they should exist for everyone else. But I'm talking under the impression that that is not the majority of vegetarians, and most will simply eat in a vegetarian restaurant because it offers them the most variety. Offering a meat dish would not change that.
and maybe it's idealising to think it's possible to guarantee to vegetarian food can be kept out of contact with meat if it's cooked in the same kitchen (I don't think it is, but maybe), but to have, for example, one meat starter out of 20 and likewise for main courses - 2 out of 40, so 5% (I think) - is that really unfair? Is it much worse than being able to eat 100% of what's on the menu?
the one veggie starter in a "meat" restaurant were tofu and you didn't like tofu.
I'd appreciate the effort though :P. I just like parallels. I like everything to be neat and tidy. I want to be able to draw lines from everything on the menu of a vegetarian restaurant and match it with someone on the menu from a "meat" restaurant. I'm not expecting everyone to be happy all the time, I'd just like equivalence. Also, although it might seem ridiculous and petty to you, I don't like being taken to a vegetarian restaurant under the assumption that, because I don't have any moral or religious reasons, or anything similar, not to eat nothing with meat in it, that I don't have a problem with not even being offered the possibility of something I'd prefer and things not being completely fair.
i would still eat there. but lots of, especially vegans, would not stand for their being any meat there. it's just the way they are a lot of the time.
that is irrational, and without foundation.
there is no one that is ever completely rational in their thought. and OPEN YOUR MIND TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF ENJOYING VEGETARIAN FOOODSIES!!!
when i go with people to Moxies or Earls or wherever i end up having to eat a salad or cheese nachos or fries. actually, this is how things used to be. i'm no longer vegetarian now, i eat fish, so now i can order the fish option. but that's how it used to be for me!
Music of French Origin.
Jonny Hallyday to win all categories every single year for all time in a relentless loop of despair.
for one it stops it being a vegetarian restaurant.
also, if you went to a jewish or halal restaurant would you expect to be able to have bangers and mash or a pork chop? they are simply dietetic restrictions too and you'd be out of order expecting to be able to get either of them on your plate. "C'mon! maybe if you sold pork you'd get more non-jewish customers in".
a vegetarian restaurant limits itself to vegetarian food on a moral/ethcal basis just like a kosher resaurant does on a religious basis and it would be unfair to expect one to stick to their beliefs and the other not.
i am not jewish, islamic or a vegetarian.
we went to a really good resturant in brighton that had a full vegan menu and a "normal" menu and it made things a lot easier for eating with my family
i was actually wondering about what your view'd be what with seeing you PETA video the other day.
so, your attitude to vegetarianism. kind of like my attitude to religion? have yours but down ram it down my throat as i don't want any of it.
i suppose you're after the greatest good to animals but have to do things one day at a time.
With good points made by everybody.
It seems to me that there is an air of considered moral superiority with vegetarians and particularly vegans.
Everyone should just get pizzas.
People who eat meat generally do not solely eat meat, I'm sure the often have a meal without meat in it without feeling put out.
Also, I imagine that in a vegetarian resaurant, the chef is probably vegetarian and wouldn't want to cook meat. Perhaps...
so I don't really get what the issue is.
When vegetarians go to restaraunts they usually get a choice of about two crap options. And more often than not, it's prepared alongside meat. I think it's not too much to ask for a meat-eater to have a vegetarian meal once in a while. If the restaraunt is any good they'll make meals as satisfying as ones with meat in them anyway. And who knows - you might even enjoy it.
People seem to be unable to distinguish between "carnivores" (something which eats only meat) and "omnivores"(something which eats loads of stuff, possibly including meat.)
When a vegetarian goes to a restaurant, they have to eat something with only vegetables. When someone who eats meat goes to a resteraunt, they dont have to eat meat. At all.
The only people who insist on eating meat with every meal are old people.
"i MUST eat meat" attitude.
what a load of bollocks. the only true human carnivores are on the atkins diet and have bad breath.
but purely because it would make it easier and probably a good business decision. I dont however think meat eaters are "entitled" to it, or restaurants should be obliged to provide one)
which have good vegetarian options and good meat options. They do exist. They're just not vegetarian restaurants then.
He's presented an entirely reasonable argument with a logical explanation for it.
If people disagree with him that's fine but the people who are calling him ignorant or suggesting he's been deliberately annoying for making it are completely missing the point.
Personally although I'm not a vegetarian I often have non-vegetarian meals or even vegetarian equivalents to "meat" products (I prefer veggie burgers to beefburgers for example and will often eat veggie sausages 'cos they're much better for you than meat sausages). But that's my choice.
And vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice - there's no valid comparison to singing hymns in a mosque - it's an entirely different issue.
If there were more (not necessarily all) predominantly vegetarian restaurants that attempted to cater for meat eaters too it'd make it much easier for vegetarians to go to these restaurants with families/friends who do eat meat. And why is that a bad thing?
And yes, some vegetarians or vegans will refuse to eat somewhere if meat products are also being prepared. But that's their own business and not really a reason to not do something.
I personally think the current situation in restaurants where it's essentially segregated = with only vegetarian places offering extensive vegetarian food while most places offer tokenistic vegetarian options which are often unsuitable for vegans - are problematic and see no valid reason at all why any step which brings the two together is a bad thing.
"Why can't a meat-eater have a meal without meat once in a while"
They can. But they might not want to. And, given many people find eating out in a restaurant relatively expensive and a rare treat, is it really so unreasonable that they should get to eat what they choose on the occasions that they do do it?
"they should be obliged to have a meat option because some people want to eat meat with every meal"
The flipside of this is
"they should be obliged to have a vegetarian option because some people HAVE TO eat vegetarian meals"
That's why I feel restaurants should feel obliged to provide a vegetarian option, but it's merely sensible for a "vegetarian" restaurant to have a meat option.
When I was in paris i lived off plain crepes for a week. It was shit.
and wasn't quite advocating the same thing as you'll have seen from my argument. I certainly don't think the should be obliged to.
But I disagreed with how some people seemed to be implying Zapsta was making a stupid, ignorant and unreasonable argument. Which - although I don't quite agree with him - he evidently wasn't.
Vegetarians don't HAVE to eat vegetarian meals. It's a decision they make and one I respect. And obviously the case for vegetarians being catered for is far stronger than the argument that meat-eaters should be catered for.
But - unless soemone's allergic to meat - it's not entirely accurate to say anyone HAS to eat vegetarian meals. It's still their decision to do so.
Most of the time the decision to be vegetarian is based on morals, which have to be taken as inherent in a person and unchangeable and unavoidable, therefore its not as simple as saying "oh they could if they want to"
If a meat eater can make a moral case for having to eat meat with every meal, then maybe resteraunts should have to provide a meat option.
But then it would just come down to how many people were bothered about it, and just how "PC" everyone was feeling.
I'm not disputing vegetariansim is a moral decision. And I'm not saying it should be ignored or taken lightly. Frankly I feel vegetarians should be much better catered for in restaurants in general and again stress I utterly accept and respect someone's moral decision to not eat meat and no-one should ever be in a position where they have to eat meat if they've chosen not to do so.
But the fact remains it is a moral DECISION and a moral choice. It's something you've chosen to do, not something you've been forced to do. In many ways I think that makes it a stronger commitment and don't really see why you have a problem with me making that point.
Nothing concerning morals is a "decision". It has to be taken that morals are forced on people, even if they decide to accept them, otherwise they lose their status as morals.
It would be the equivelent of saying "if a muslim women is having a passport photo taken and she doesent want to take off her veil, she shouldnt be allowed to travel as the passport wouldnt be complete"
The veil is part of her religion, and although its her decision to accept that part of the religion, taking it off wouldnt be her decision because it would be against her morals.
That analogy's probably not 100% but maybe its close enough. I dunno.
I agree far more with me.
I wasn't sure the analogy held.
theguywithnousername has really said it all.
I find meals without meat to be much less enjoyable and my wife is vegetarian.
I hate finding that on the all to rare occasion we get to go for a meal, one of has to immediately compromise.
it's that restaurants should cater more to other people's choices.
but that pretty much excludes vegetarians from the catering industry.
as vegetarians are a minority (albeit a self enforced minority) restaurants will never given then equal or equivalent menus to those with meat on them as there isn't sufficient demand.
that there ar exclusively vegetarian restaurants shows that they are not adequately catered for by mainsream restaurants.
vegetarian restaurants SPECIALISE in - as their name suggests - vegetarian foods. Fair enough, right? There's a reason they don't sell meat in their establishment, and that's already been discussed previously.
Restaurants, cafés etc. are not always that specialised and allow room to offer meals without meat; but they don't, usually because the managers are unimaginitive, lazy or the dishes might not be popular enough. That's bullshit. I think vegetarians should get more of an option than house salad and garlic bread.
Also, in reference to your point ^way up there^ that meat-eaters might not want to have vegetarian meals, that's true. But some people are clearly just being too fussy and difficult. There's loads of stuff to try on one menu, there's bound to be something they'd enjoy. Some people just lack a sense of adventure in food, and for that I have no sympathy.
It's rare to eat in a place that doesn't.
that's basically all that was offered. I felt sorry for all the veggies. That and the kitchen was tiny, so meat and vegetables were prepared on the same grill etc.
I realise that's not true for everywhere though.
though i only went because my meat eating friends indulge in "ironic "i love meat"-ness.
They bought a big fuck off bucket of stuff
it tastes like shit (especially the chips)
they're ultra cruel
the chairs are fixed to the ground - surely a sign of shit food?
They're a bit different. I mean KFC is specifically a fried chicken shop. In most Cafes and restaurants there'll be some kind of pasta and vegetables or vegetarian lasagne or baked potato or whatever.
every time they go out for lunch? There's rarely anything different, from what I can tell.
in the two years I was a vegetarian.
I imagine that makes a difference.
I'm sure I replied under John but it seems to have indented to imply I was relying to yes_
SOme of the time I was a vegetarian. And I never really had problems eating out.
You can do as many adventurous and different things with meat as you can with vegetables.
having a veggie restaurant with a bit of meat doesn't really make sense. At all. Ever.