I would advise Jaime not to start eating fish, for a number of ethical, health and environmental reasons. If you have "protein cravings" seek out the more protein rich plant-based foods like seitan and experiment with recipes.  

I do understand where Umbra is coming from when she suggests that those who start having animal protein cravings may want to go out and buy an animal and try to kill it, but I'm not sure if it's legal to acquire a pig or a cow for the purpose of killing if you live in a city or suburb and not on a farm, and I don't know how an untrained city or burb dweller could possibly humanely kill livestock in their homes.

Too bad slaughter houses don't open their doors to the public.  Next best option is to watch documentaries on the meat industry to remind yourself of why you went vegetarian in the first place.

Ummm... why not ask your doctor? I have two friends who used to be vegetarian but are no longer (strictly) veg on the advice of doctors*. One because of mental health, the other for physical. Neither eats meat regularly, but they feel better (the depressed one no longer needs meds). I also know people who feel better after going strictly veg.

Bottom line? None of us can assess Jaime's situation, physically or morally. That's why Umbra suggested guidelines for doing that.

* I should mention that these were doctors in hippie towns (Santa Cruz, CA and Madison, WI) and probably not anti-vegetarian.

I would highly recommend Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma".  In fact, when meat is raised in an environmentally friendly manner (grass fed cows, for example) there are benefits all the way around, from better pastures to using land (marginal grasslands) that would not otherwise produce food. It is very hard to maintain an organic farm without animals to provide the nitrogen needed by the plants. Yes, it can be done, but not easily. It may even turn out, as Umbra suggests, that many of the health problems associated with meat diets should correctly be associate with 'grain-fed meat diets'.

Bottom line - we can't simply say that eating meat is bad for the environment.  Any more than we can argue that eating vegetables is good for it.  It all depends on where our food comes from and how it was produced.

I definitely fall under the category of "people who feel better after going strictly veg."  Trick is to eat a large variety of plant-based foods.

I also tried vegetarianism and know many vegetarians. It did not work for me. I was not getting enough protein and couldn't bring myself to eating tofu (I was a teenager). I began to feel weak and my Mom made me quit. I eat elk that my husband and I harvest with much gratefullness to the animal and mostly just beef from a local rancher. I guess my question would be why does Jamie want to eat meat? The History Channel did a story on primitive man and said that the only way we have the brain that we do is by eating a flesh diet. Flesh developes big brains. Also genetically we are meant to be omnivores based on the way our teeth are shaped. I admire people who can live the vegetarian lifestyle, but like Umbra, I'm addicted to BACON!!!

Well, this reminds me of a saying, slightly modified to protect the overly-sensitive among us.

Opinions are like rump-roasts -- everybody's got one.

My opinion is that starting to eat flesh is a slippery slope. OK, so you pick and choose to make sure that you are doing nothing environmentally irresponsible, then all of a sudden you find yourself at a friend's or a restaurant, and you go for a piece of flesh that most likely has not been chosen with the same care you would personally exercise.

Then there's the concept that no matter where you get your meat, it puts pressure on the entire industry to produce more. That means that even by eating grass-fed local beef (or wild salmon), you might be helping out the corn-feed-lot beef (or farmed salmon) industry.

I find it much easier to "just say no" to animal flesh. Then I do not have to worry about it (other than occasional cravings for Hamachi & Maguro sushi -- good thing for me that there're some great veggie rolls out there).

Would buying grass-fed beef from your neighbor really help out the feedlot-beef producer? I thought part of the reason one bought the grass-fed beef in the first place was to create specific demand for a competing product NOT produced by the feedlot guy, thus forcing him to adapt his methods or risk losing revenue. Help me out here.

My parents used to buy chickens and kill them in our kitchen all the time.  Live chickens aren't hard to find, but yes, a pig or cow would be difficult to buy and kill (not to mention expensive).  

I agree that evaluating your sentiments over killing and cleaning your own meat is the best way to determine whether you can/should eat meat or not.  Can you break that chicken's neck, or slit it's throat, and be more or less ok?  If so, then go for it, but I think most people can't.  I've been (lacto-)vegetarian for over 15 years and it's been nothing but good for me. I do tend to lean towards the "humans are built to be omnivores" side of things though, so I can't really fault people if they want to eat meat.  I just hope people can be more "thoughtful" in regards to how they go about it.  

That NY Times article is really interesting.  Thanks for the link.

Why in the world did Jaime of NYC bother to write this letter?  Is the public display of anguished hand-wringing supposed to convince us of this person's essentially good heart?  Really though, whatever the problem happens to be, the solution is not at all hard to find.

Did this person try vegetarianism for reasons of personal health, but now is in fact craving flesh?  Then Jaime should by all means eat meat, both fish and tetrapod flesh, the most healthful kinds.

Did this person try vegetarianism for environmental reasons?  Again, Jaime should eat meat, but carefully selected.  There are fisheries that are sustainably managed, we are told.  And hopefully there are farms that are not too distant, on which tetrapods are raised fairly happily, eating good, healthy food naturally appropriate for those animals.

Did this person try vegetarianism out of concern for animal welfare?  Then Jaime already knows what to do.  Why bother writing to Umbra?

To Pandu: It is good to hear from you again.

There are several excellent reasons for consuming a vegetarian diet:  Meat production is an extremely inefficient means of producing protein for human consumption and contributes more than vehicles to greenhouse gases. Meat comsumption contributes to obesity and numerous human health problems.  Animal protein, contrary to common belief, is not a necessary component of a healthy diet.  Animals raised for human comsumption are most often NOT treated humanely during their lifetimes or in the slaughtering process.

My extended family of 15, ranging in ages from 21 months to 69 years, are all vegetarians for solely ethical and environmental reasons.  We are all exceptionally healthy.  None of us have ever been told by our health care providers that our diets were inadequate or should be altered in any manner.  One of my daughters is a physician whose training in medicine was completed at UCSF, one of the top institutions in the US.

I would strongly advise Jamie not to eat fish for all the obvious reasons. IF she does though, I hope she does not call herself a vegetarian as so many people do!
A FISH IS NOT A VEGETABLE.

I had to correct a Wikipedia entry recently about vegetarianism.  It was a joke.  Their list of (literally) "Types of Vegetarians" included people who eat fish, people who eat all meats except fish, etc.

Vegetarian means "eats NO meats" not "eats some vegetables".

And "strict vegetarian" does NOT mean a vegetarian who sometimes eats meat.  It means a vegetarian who does not consume eggs or dairy, either.

You might be a vegetarian who fell off the wagon for one day, when you passed a Chick-Fila.  But, if you eat any animal flesh on a regular basis -- more than just on a holiday (and no that does not include Secretary's Day, Flag Day, Ground Hog Day, Take Your Child to Work Day...) -- you are NOT a vegetarian.

And, therefore, you should find or make up your own damn term for whatever it is that you think you.

This Ask Umbra was surprisingly relevant to me as I have just stopped being vegetarian/freegetarian. I have been freegetarian (meaning if someone had ordered meat and couldn´t finish it, or if there were meat in the fridge about to go bad I would go ahead and eat it since there is no reason for such a nutritious and valuable thing to go to waste) but mostly vegetarian, and I have learned to wonders of a mostly plant based diet. Alhough my reasons for being vegetarian had mostly to do with the concept of ahimsa, or no harm, and following a yogic/dhammic diet, I figured that freegan eats were allowed since I was making sure that shunned foods didn´t go to waste, and by making a fuss about not throwing away food I found that I made my friends and relatives more conscious about their waste. Unfortunately I now find myself in a country where vegetarianism is an alien concept to say the least. You ask for a plate in Nicaragua without meat and they give you chicken. You explain that chicken is meat too, and they give you a cow heart. You explain to them that you don´t eat any part of any animal and they give you rice and beans fried in pig lard. It´s really impossible. I had the same situation in Cuba where I was for 4 months surviving entirely on rice, beans, eggs, soy protein (which I think they actually mixed with ground up entrails of a variety of animals), guava paste, black market yogurt and mangoes the size of my head, crackers, rum, and cohibas. After four months of that I nearly ejaculated with joy upon my first visit to Whole Foods, every package of delicious produce and exotic organic food shooting semi-sexually charged rays into the bottom of my stomach down to my gonads.

Well, 2 months into my next foray into the world of eating nothing but rice and beans I said to hell with it and sat down and ordered a beef steak, and fried chicken. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!! I never forgot how GOOD meat tastes, but I had been psychotically repressing myself from it for so long that when I finally had those mouth watering morsels I knew it would be a long time before readventuring into the world of vegetarianism (ie until i get back to the states). After the first few days of binge eating entire chickens in a sitting I have finally balanced out to about 2 portions of meat per day (which is really only like 1 portion for me since I am a big guy), and have no intentions of looking back til I get back to the States since all the meat here is free range and grass fed. And DELICIOUS. I swear to god, meat is the only thing Nicaraguans know how to cook deliciously.

Another point I will make is based on a passage from the book Paths to God: Living the Bhagavad Gita, by Ram Dass (aka Richard Alpert). He talks about being in India and studying under his master Maharaji and going insane on his vegetarian diet. He was tormenting himself with thoughts of meat and finally decided to eat some pork ribs at a local chinese restaurant. He did a big long prayer of gratitude and awareness of the animal´s suffering before digging in but then he went at it, and at the end of the meal a white guy comes up to him and explains that he is a devout christian and saw Ram doing his long prayer before his meal and asked him if he was religious. Ram explained his spiritual training and then the guy asked him about his diet since he was a heavy guy and had been wondering about his eating habits of late. Ram said that "I would have given anything to have said ´well of course I´M a vegetarian´ but there were the bones staring up at me."

The point of this is that we are humans. Humans are not necessarily basically evil, but basically self-centered and survival driven. The more we try to repress our base desires like having sex or eating meat, the more likely we are to stoke our ego flames saying "yes, i am a better person now, i am doing the right thing" when in reality we are driving ourselves insane thinking about eating a hot dog while bonking our monkey brains out. I think the Michael Pollan got it right: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Let your conscience be your guide and your body will follow.

Sure, I see the juicy burger commercials on t.v. and get a craving.  Is it my body talking?  No, it is the advertiser talking.

True cravings will come and cravings will go.  It also can be darn expensive and inconvenient to be a vegetarian or even simply a conscientious eater.  (Limited good dine-out options.)

Just fight the urges and stay resolute in your conscience.

But, if you want to eat fish or meat in general, think of the goal/practice as you would say energy consumption:  Try to leave the lightest possible (carnivorous) footprint. And, don't call yourself a vegetarian!

I have been a (ovo-lacto) vegetarian for more than 10 years.  In recent months, as I have come to learn more about the consequences to a cow/calf (even those on an "humane" farms) from giving milk, I have given up dairy.  

It has been incredibly difficult for me to give up cheese and tough to find products that do not contain milk/butter. I have had to give up regular meal items that truly gave me joy. (Oh, how I miss the California Pizza Kitchen's Pear-Gorgonzala Pizza.) Everyday seems a struggle. But, I have been resolute, albeit cranky.

That being said, if anyone knows of a dairy farm where: the cow's are free range, milk cows wear a harnesses to hold their milk load, calves are kept with and fed by their mothers, mothers are milked only as long as their milk supply lasts naturally, and all live out their days in bliss, please let me know.

Yes, Marylou, you are right that animal protein is not necessary for a healthful diet.  Unfortunately people like MTVyFan, and whoever wrote that misleading History Channel program (on subjects that I know something about, the History Channel can be woefully inaccurate: not necessarily wrong, but definitely leaving viewers with the wrong impression), still seem to insist that people are doing something unnatural and unwholesome when they drop meat from their diet.  And that is simply not true.  It may be true that a good vegan diet requires a certain minimum of thought and preparation, but there are countless people who will tell us that it can most certainly be done.

I tell Jaime to eat fish and tetrapod flesh, if he/she really feels a yearning for it, because it is silly, and perhaps mean, to try forcefully to persuade people who are not ready yet, to alter their diet, with shame and guilt and other kinds of social pressure as tactical tools.  As a supporter of animal rights, I would love it if Jaime and others were to become committed vegetarians.  But Jaime is apparently not really ready yet; so, let Jaime eat whatever Jaime wants to eat.

Also, it is very important not to mix up the three chief motivations for becoming vegetarian: concern for personal health, concern for the environment, and concern for animal welfare.  

(And by the way, it is inaccurate to use the qualifier "ethical" for the last one alone.  They are all ethical, inasmuch as they all have something to do with duty or virtue, in one way or another.)

(A fourth motivation, already discussed thirty-five years ago by Frances Moore Lappe' though it is not often mentioned, is that it would be much easier to feed the poor and hungry of the world if the huge investment in raising livestock were to be shifted to the growing of certain vegetables and grains.)

When, as in my case, the concern is principally for animal welfare, it is important that we not muddy our reasoning by adding the other concerns as though they were equivalent motivations.  If there are other good results of a vegetarian diet than sparing the lives of animals, terrific, that should make us very happy.  But it is better not to make so much of those results.  Unfortunately, many supporters of animal welfare, PETA in the first place, do it all the time, and that strikes me as fishy, so to speak, and damaging to the cause.

We animal-rights types should understand that our movement's place in US society is intellectually not dissimilar to that of the falsely-called "pro-life" (i.e. anti-abortion) movement (to which I do not belong, by the way, though I sympathize in part).  Pro-lifers are convinced that an abortion is equivalent to the murder of an innocent human person, and they are baffled that women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, abortion providers and their legal supporters do not see what is so very clear to them.  In fact, many of these people would barely find the strength to kill someone in self-defense, let alone commit murder; the fact is, it is not at all obvious to them (to us) that abortion is a species of murder.  Perhaps we shall evolve, morally, to see the issue as the pro-lifers see it, some day.  But that will take time.  So, meanwhile, my advice to both pro-lifers and supporters of animal rights is to be calm and patient, to lead by good example, to give quiet witness to the evil that we wish to crush, and to back off from pressure tactics and the demonization of opponents.

Also:

RobinHartman wisely writes, "A fish is not a vegetable."  It most certainly is not.  And our habit of calling a diet that may include fish, eggs and dairy products "vegetarian" is a curious one.

It reflects the perhaps inherent way that human beings relate to animals.  Many of us find it fairly easy to recognize some psychological similarities, with respect to emotions, between us and mammals, and often birds too.  But fish, fellow vertebrates, seem a bit too foreign.

In fact, from the way that fish that are hooked or netted struggle to escape (and those who do not struggle have already had their nervous systems overwhelmed by the colossal change in pressure as they were quickly hoisted up the water column and above the surface), it is reasonable to surmise that they are as acutely capable of feeling fear and pain as any other vertebrate.

I have one piece of advise that will probably make up your mind for you:
go to your local library and read "The Empty Ocean" by Richard Ellis.

25 years ago when I read Diet for a Small Planet, I became a lacto-ovo vegetarian, supplementing with locally grown eggs and milk products by humane dairies.  

Factory farm animals live a tortured existence; also, I don't believe it's right to take a life not freely given and then take pleasure in eating its flesh.  

"Protein cravings" mean you're not getting enough amino acids, which require just a little more care in your diet.

A principle based on shame and guilt won't last long and lead to - or be caused by a conflicted inner life.

I am incapable of growing vegetables (I've tried... the only thing that has survived over the years is the third rosemary plant, and I wouldn't exactly say it's thriving). Does that mean I should not let others do it for me?

We all know (or are ourselves) people for whom a purely vegetarian diet works well. But is it so hard to accept that everyone's body is different? Why does "it works fine for me" suffice as evidence that everyone should? I'm a morning person, yet many struggle daily with the usual diurnal cycle. Whatever, their bodies are different. Is that so hard?

If you argue on a moral basis, that's even worse: everyone should share your morals? Hello, religious right!

Unlike Canis, I am tired of Pandu's ad hominem (ad feminem? We do not know how Umbra identifies, though we suspect female, from her discussions of feminine hygiene products) attacks.

I, too, am confused how "I eat meat I buy from my neighbor" provokes the response "but factory-farmed meat is evil." So everyone agrees... good!

True story: I was on a road trip in SD with a strict vegetarian. Naturally, we ate almost all our meals in camp (the other options being starvation or endless grilled-cheez sandwiches). On a rare restaurant adventure, we overheard the people in the next booth asking [I'm not making this up, I swear] for "vegetarian dishes, like maybe something with shrimp?" It was all we could do to not actually laugh out loud.

You say that if you think that statement is an anomaly.  I can't tell you how many times upon someone learning I am a vegetarian will ask "so, do you eat fish?" (Other vegetarians tell me the same story.) As we have all learned today for the first time, a fish is not a vegetable.

Better still, this girl that I was working with one day says: 'I'm a vegetarian too.'  I said "Really?!"  She said something nearly precisely this idiotic: 'Yes. But, I eat fish and chicken.  And, ocassionally I eat steak.'  

It was at that point that I killed her, devoured her animal flesh, belched, and never felt bad about it. (No, not really.)

adding yet another opinion to this debate, but I would like to say, caniscandida...  For translating "quadruped" into Greek for no apparent reason and then using it as if it were a preexisting technical term...  You rock.

To Mihan: "Homo, hominis" means "man" in the old-fashioned sense, equivalent to "human being," not to "man" as in "I now pronounce you man and wife."  The noun with the latter sense is "vir, viri," etymon of the adjective "virile."  The Greek analogues, by the way, are "anthropos, anthropou" and "aner, andros," respectively.

And so "ad hominem" could equally well refer to a man or a woman.  But if you wanted to say specifically "to, toward, up against a woman," you could say "ad feminam."

On Pandu: I certainly do not agree with him, or endorse his style, 100% of the time.  But he has a unique perspective on eating habits.  And, being a student of religions, I find what he has to say about his vedaist form of Hinduism very interesting.

A while ago, if I recall correctly, he identified himself as male.  Of course, on the Internet, that means nothing; anybody could be anything, and no one would be the wiser.

To Pathos: "Tetrapod" is most certainly a technical term, that has been in existence a long time.  It refers to the clade of vertebrates including all Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals, and their ancestral form, a descendant of the sarcopterygian fishes, a form much like Acanthostega which clambered out of the water onto land back in the Late Devonian.  Acanthostega probably is not itself the ancestral form, having a few too many digits; the actual ancestor had just five digits on each hand and foot, a profoundly primitive character which we conservatively have kept.

By the way, you know how some clever people put that little metal amphibian-thing with DARWIN written inside it on the back of their cars, as a sort of response to the Jesus-fish on the cars of certain Christians?  That amphibian-thing is presumably supposed to be the first tetrapod.

Please keep in mind that the veg/not veg debate only happens because we are HUGELY prosperous. Most people on this planet don't have the luxury to be picky (not to mention dogmatic) about what they eat.

This is a highly personal decision and an important one. Dietary religious fundamentalism on either side isn't helpful.

Jaime, I can't tell you what you should do, but I can tell you what I did. I was a vegetarian for 15 years. Then one day, I had a tremendous craving for fish. I fought it for a few weeks, but eventually caved in. The craving was sated for a few weeks, then returned. Now I eat fish every so often, whenever a craving strikes. It's been five years, and I still can't abide the smell of other meats, so no, there was no slippery slope. I think I was missing something important that the fish gives me, and my body tells me when it's time for another dose.

My rule is that I will eat what I would be willing to kill myself. This is hugely subjective, wildly inconsistent (I will eat trout but not swordfish, because swordfish are beautiful), and varies over time (if I were starving in a forest, I'd probably kill anything to keep me alive). I also follow the Monterey Bay Aquarium guidelines for sustainable fishing.

In the end, listen to your heart and to what your body needs. And ignore the pious much in the way you ignore Jerry Falwell.

Greta,
Strict vegetarian is not necessarily the same as vegan, which you described.

I'm lacto vegetarian, but consider myself a strict vegetarian.  For example, I don't drink pink juices with carmine coloring (comes from bugs) and don't eat marshmallows except for the special vegan ones.  If I go to Subway, I request they use fresh gloves if they've touched meat, and that they do not cut my sub with a dirty knife.  I also try to avoid restaurants that serve meat because of the strong risk of contamination.  And so on.  

I drink milk because my religion requires it, and for balance I have a cow out back whom I am protecting for life, and I also work aggressively for cow protection (another requirement for the Hare Krishna folks).

Mihan,

You support animal killing.  

I speak for the sake of animals who cannot defend themselves.

And you say I'm attacking?

No, I'm defending.

Don't pervert the issue.

---
Hi Canis.  Nice to hear from you.

Every second in the USA more than 300 animals are unnecessarily killed for food.  Ten billion a year.  There is no moderate position on this.

So, basically, things that actually locomote via four foot structures get Latin to themselves, while everything that essentially has four limbs (plus a few things that don't, like snakes and most whales, just 'cause there's a genetic connection) gets to share Greek.  Got it.

Eh, I suppose that's as good a way to use the same word twice without confusion as any other.

Sorry, Pathos (Greek for "suffering": but why?; what suffering?), I did not go far enough in my explanation.

"Tetrapod" and "quadruped" are etymologically synonymous: a being that has four legs (or rather feet).  But the way that evolutionary biologists use the former is technical (it is curious that while Latin seems a bit old-fashioned and over-used, Greek still retains its currency) and a bit tricky:

All quadrupeds -- four-legged animals that generally live on land (but possibly we can refer to such marine animals as pinnipeds, marine turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs, in whom the ancestral legs have evolved into flippers, as quadrupeds) -- are tetrapods.  But not all tetrapods are quadrupeds.

Some tetrapods that are not quadrupeds are bipeds.  E.g.: the bipedal dinosaurs; the pterosaurs; the birds, which are really a kind of bipedal dinosaur; certain primates, including human beings and our closest relatives (or, possibly, most primates?, or even all primates?); bats; kangaroos and wallabies.

Some tetrapods that are not quadrupeds have lost the ancestral hind limbs, or have them much reduced, while their fore limbs have evolved into flippers: viz. the cetaceans.

Some tetrapods that are not quadrupeds are nearly or totally legless.  E.g.: snakes; some lizards, and Mesozoic reptiles of other lineages; caecilians, and some salamanders.

The point is, tetrapods are not necessarily themselves four-legged, but every one of them (of us!) had four-legged ancestors, in the first place the common ancestor of them (us!) all, that "missing link" between the sarcopterygian fishes and the amphibians from way back in the Devonian.  As I said, it inspired that back-of-the-car ornament, the modified Jesus-fish, with added legs, and DARWIN written inside the body.  (N.B.: The dorsal branch of the tail should be absent.)

And you can be proud of that ancestor of yours: it was a kind of cute little critter, to judge from the diorama at the American Museum of Natural History.

And so, to return to how I originally used "tetrapod" in this thread: when I contrasted the flesh of fish with the flesh of tetrapods, I meant by the latter not only mammals, most often in the US cattle and pigs, but also birds, especially poultry.  For that matter, reptiles and amphibians could be included: I myself have never had snake or alligator or turtle ("tastes like chicken!"), or frogs' legs, but, to be sure, there are people who will eat just about anything.

(Actually, alligators are more closely related to chickens than they are to snakes, and very much more closely related to chickens than they are to turtles.)

The nature of the sentience and capacity for suffering of the invertebrates that people eat, e.g. squid, octopus, bivalves and snails from among the mollusks, crabs, lobsters, shrimp and crayfish from among the crustaceans, and crickets (in Oaxaca, Mexico) from among the insects, is another great subject, but not for now.

Like I said...  Things that actually locomote with four foot-structures get Latin, and the whole giant group of four-limbed things (arms and legs, legs and wings, arms and wings--don't know of any with that last combination, but that would be cool), along with some of their fewer-limbed relatives, get to share Greek.  Got it.

Also, alligator actually isn't bad if prepared properly.  Frog legs, on the other hand...  The phrase that came to my mind was "chicken-flavored chewing gum"--and I really didn't mean that in a good way.

"Please keep in mind that the veg/not veg debate only happens because we are HUGELY prosperous. Most people on this planet don't have the luxury to be picky (not to mention dogmatic) about what they eat."

That's false. Hindu sects that practice vegetarianism do so for ethical reasons, and they've done so for thousands of years, rich and poor. The availability of ethical food there is a result of structuring the society to facilitate ethics, not some modern privileged personal choice. If an ethic is important to people, they make it happen.

Poor people far from India very rarely get the opportunity to eat meat. So while the question of "luxury" factors in there, it does so in precisely the opposite manner that you imply.

Even if none of this were true, and your wild assertions were accurate, what difference would it make? The fact is that you live in a society where it is logistically feasible to be vegan, so you can't use "lack of opportunity" to excuse yourself from making the ethical choice.

Your use of the term "dogma" is telling. Though some people like to use it as a slander, as you've done, it ain't necessarily so. A "dogma" is a tenet that is held to be true without requiring other support: an axiom. It is not my dogma that humans should not eat animals.

I have a different axiom: "a morally-aware being (like a human) is ethically bound to minimize suffering." Actually, I derive this statement from something else (more complex than I feel like explaining here), so it isn't technically an axiom, but it's near enough that we can treat it as one for the moment.

If you do not agree with the statement that "a morally-aware being (like a human) is ethically bound to minimize suffering," then I would not want to be alone with you, and there's no point in carrying on a conversation with a psychopath anyway.

But it's probably safe to assume that you're a decent person and you agree with the statement. Then, logically, certain things follow:

Eliminating animal products from one's diet would reduce suffering.
It is possible today for you to eliminate animal products from your diet.
Therefor, you are ethically bound (to reduce suffering) by eliminating animal products from your diet.

The only thing there that can theoretically be called a dogma is the notion that we ought to minimize suffering. I doubt you disagree with that "dogma." But, hypocrisy is the way of things. We're all guilty of it and I'm not saying you're a bad person for being a hypocrite. I'm a hypocrite too sometimes. That's one common way that humans deal with contradictions between our desires.

You want to excuse yourself from the logical consequences of your own belief (that we should minimize suffering), so you use choice words to slander people who don't excuse themselves. That way you can feel righteous, because you're better than them. Comparing them to religious fundamentalists looks like a profitable endeavor. Let's try that:

"This is a highly personal decision and an important one. Dietary religious fundamentalism on either side isn't helpful. ... And ignore the pious much in the way you ignore Jerry Falwell."

Is this an apt comparison? Can this metaphor hold (the enormous) weight (of Jerry Falwell)?

To decide, let's remind ourselves what's wrong with religious fundamentalism. I think Sam Harris says it quite succinctly: "Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so-called 'moral' questions--such as gay marriage--where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs."

Well then, there you go. Veganism and religious fundamentalism are as different as night and day. Vegans are concerned only with actually existing suffering, not with phantoms, nor with moralizing about irrelevancies that do not cause harm to living, feeling creatures.

Picking one's nose is a personal choice. Consensual sex involves two persons' personal choices. Eating another animal is by definition not a personal choice, because the animal's own will is necessarily involved and the animal has not consented. I don't concern myself with other peoples' personal choices. But when there are animals who are being murdered, I do have a duty to speak up.

If you think it's wrong to be concerned with minimizing suffering, then let's hear it, but otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

Again, everyone's a hypocrite. I'm not going to burn you at the stake for it. But it may hurt your self-respect, and the cognitive dissonance you experience is definitely going to damage your life in noticeable ways.

For instance, it's already bothering you so much that you're lashing out with extremely insulting false analogies (Falwell) and loaded, deliberately slanderous equivocations (fundamentalism) to demonize people who represent your own self-doubt and dissonance. This need you have, to lash out as you've done, cannot be indicative of a healthy outlook.

Something is wrong, and you're upset enough that you need a scapegoat or enemy, and you've found it in vegans. Maybe it's not your cognitive dissonance that's upsetting you; maybe there's something else more troublesome in your life. I can't know. But I do know that a satisfied person doesn't demonize others like you've done.

You say you think there was something lacking in your diet that fish provides. That's possible. Could be omega-3,6,9 fatty acids. Could be something else. I would suggest that you wait some weeks until you get a strong craving, then go see a licensed medical nutritionist. They can do a blood test to determine what you're missing. Then you can find a way to supplement that with a vegan diet, and be healthy while bringing yourself back to your own moral axioms. If it turns out your blood test is fine, then you just like the taste of fish, and you're prioritizing your aesthetic preferences over other creatures' lives. That is exactly analogous to the "Simon the Sadist" thought experiment; I suggest you google it and then contemplate your self-respect again.

bugmenot:

You wrote a considered response, so let me offer you the same regard.

Wittingly or not, you kill merely through your existence. When you boil water, you kill the microbes in the water. When you walk across the lawn, you kill insects beneath your feet. And so forth. In the end, the only way for you not to kill other organisms is for you to cease to exist.

Let's assume (hope, even) you aren't going to kill yourself for the sake of the insects in the grass. In that case, you have chosen to draw a line somewhere: I am willing to kill these organisms, but not those. This is where your conscious mind comes in to help you make your personal choice.

Axiom: I cannot live without killing.
Therefore: I choose to draw the line for acceptable killing here.

I completely respect your choice to be vegan, and  the reasons for that choice (much as I respect similar religious choices). I do not respect your right to inflict your choice upon me or anyone else (again, similar to my feelings about religion).

I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this entire discussion, especially caniscandida's comparison of animal rights with the "pro-life" movement.  I think the similarities are warranted and enlightening.

tritesprite has a good response to bugmenot, but I'd like to add a point that clarifies some of the differences in positions.  bugmenot asserts that if we agree that "a morally-aware being is ethically bound to minimize suffering," that it logically follows that "Eliminating animal products from one's diet would reduce suffering."

But, bugmenot, you and many others are falsely equating "suffering" with "death".  Are they really equivalent?  I, for one, don't think so.  Death is inevitable, necessary, and part of the natural order of things.  Although many humans and many cultures have a "denial of death" (which I tend to think is rather influential in both the pro-life and animal rights worlds), I don't think we should confuse a fear of death with a desire to reduce suffering.

While I am certainly as much of a hypocrite as the next person, I don't think it is hypocritical to have the goal of reducing suffering but also to eat meat (i.e., cause the death of animals), if we take pains to only support farmers/farming methods that raise animals in a way that doesn't cause suffering.

As a final aside, I find the little signs of hypocrisy in people to be quite amusing: witness Pandu, the defender of animals, admitting to eating at Subway, a fine supporter of factory farming (both meat and veg), which, as we (should) well know, causes suffering to migrant farmworkers (pesticides, etc.).

Let's all get over ourselves a bit, shall we, and give each other a break?

Dave