Who is “we”?

If a “veg community” restaurant tossed on a token meat item, would “we” actually go there to eat it, if only to acknowledge their “fairness”?

1 Like

Texas Gulf Coast! :oyster: :oyster: :oyster:


That has nothing to do with elitism - many vegetarian restaurant owners think about the environmental impact worldwide meat production has the growing climate crisis. As a consequence they have decided to shrink their carbon footprint of the restaurant by not serving meat. This has absolutely nothing to do with elitism but simply certain thoughts on how to be part of those people who care about the future of the earth wrt environmental issues. One might argue that those restaurants who serve meat are much more about elitism as they care much less about such issues and just about their own profit


The BOH folks I know will make that meal as ordered, even if the customer is a self-entitled twatwaffle who everyone in the place knows uses the word allergy so they can be precious, all because it’s easier than watching a customer wheeled out on a crash cart as the EMTs try to keep them alive. I’ve seen what happens when an unreported allergy takes down a customer…it eats at BOH…sometimes for days.

The short answer is that there are bloody few places that even acknowledge the existence of lactose (or any other) intolerance, so it’s up to me to advocate for myself and hope to hell the server actually keys it in to the kitchen that I can’t consume dairy.

Its complicated further by the fact that allergies and intolerances are fickle bastards, and what works for me may or may not work for someone at the next table.

So a completely vegan offering (not vegetarian, as those usually have cheese or other milk products) is a complete relief, as it’s a safe option for us.

As above, it’s also a safe option for other allergies, as vegan options are probably not fired on the same flat top where ffish/seafood is fired … likely safe for kosher…likely safe for Muslim…so by offering one or two dishes, they save customers and staff from a lot of issues…its not elitism, it’s a safety valve for everyone.

Happily, the increased visibility of veganism has resulted in some actually really delicious options…no longer are we relegated to eating a side salad or a plate of fries, and I have ordered the vegan option many times just because it sounded really good (and it was). And by the way…I don’t remember the last time I had lentils or texturized vegetable protein in a vegan dish.


The number of purely vegetarian and vegan restaurants are so low compared to others and yet you still seem to be demanding they cater to you out of ‘fairness’. There also seems to be some projected fantasies of what they’re thinking or posturing (with assumptions of elitism and superiority) when really, this isn’t about you at all. As noted elsewhere, this is about meeting the dietary requirements of an underserved public and/or a sense of duty to the environment or to there sentient beings (people have differing rationales here).

If there’s anything I find fascinating, it’s the expectation that an expensive meal must contain animal products in order to be value for money (a logic I’ve seen applied regarding EMP’s vegan meal). It would seem to me that once one is paying ridiculous amounts for a meal, it’s more about paying for creativity, skill, and imagination, no?


Royal “we.” Broader “we” of humanity. Something in the middle. Pick one. grin

Recall that the principal justification for veg options in restaurants for omnivores is that people very often eat in groups and statistically four in 25 groups of four will contain a vegetarian. Vegetarians, like many minorities, appear to congregate, so it is reasonable that an omnivore may be invited to dine with a group of vegetarians. An omnivorous option when dining out would be appreciated, especially if the alternatives are heavy on lentils or quinoa (which I personally find distasteful).

Or I can just bring my own corned beef sandwich.

1 Like

I have a knee-jerk reaction to statements that include “many” as an adjective to people. It’s almost as bad as “everyone thinks.” It’s an unsubstantiated opinion without footnotes. If the concern is environmental impact the answer is quite simple. The only life form on this planet of which there is no shortage is the human being. We need less people. Or Soylent Green.

Sure. Of course they will (mostly, in most places - cite: discussions on two social media fora, large group of culinary friends). Swearing and making fun of the Karens and Kurts all the while.

There is an order of magnitude more people with lactose intolerance than veg. My observation is that volume of voices (veg) has a bigger impact than quantity of voices (lactose intolerance). I’m using lactose here because it is widespread and an example of the tyrany of the vocal minority. I use lentils as an example because I personally don’t like them but mostly as a representative of foods people eat because they’re good for you, not because they are easy to cook or in general taste good. ¹

¹ Citations

I’m not demanding anything. I have made an observation and noted a disparity.

As for “dietary requirements” in almost all cases that should read “dietary desires.” Unlike true allergies and even intolerances, vegetarianism is a choice just like religious dietary restrictions.

I stand by my observation that there is a component of moral superiority among vocal vegetarians that clearly states “I eat this way and you should too.” Do you prefer “judgmental” to “moral superiority?” I’ve never run into anyone that chose to eat kosher or halal with that attitude. Now one relative with a self-diagnosed citrus allergy thinks we should all give up citrus but I don’t put up with that either.

What I was thinking

1 Like

From my Facebook feed this morning. One data point is not statistically significant but is representative of the attitude I have observed that is.

This is how business works.

Someone sees a need…whether it be a wholly plant-based menu, yoga pants, or yacht delivery crews…and says HEY I can supply that and be paid for it.

Nobody thinks you’re being elitist or exclusionary because you dont deliver RVs or tiny homes…you are offering what you do. The folks who deliver RVs are not excluding yacht owners…they are doing what they do.

Another example…I am terrified of motorcycles, so I dont buy them. I would never dream of walking into a Harley dealership and complaining because they dont have the SUV I want to buy…not do I think a big burly biker would walk into a VW dealership and think he was not being included because they dont sell motorbikes.

It’s a big world, and we thankfully all like different things…so we go and patronize the businesses that have what we want, and dont shop at the ones that dont.

If theres enough people who like a company’s products, the company succeeds. If not, they dont.

It’s not about snobby or elite…its just trying to fill a need, preferably at a profit.


Apparently this hypothetical takes place in the 1980s.

A veg/vegan host with the type of omnivore guest who “expect[s a] vegan/veg [restaurant] to have a meat option” would choose an omnivorous restaurant. There are plenty out there.


No restaurant is “omnivorous” in the sense of having anything you might want.

“Omnivorous” refers to the eater, not the food, and if someone is omnivorous , they will eat anything–INCLUDING F***ING VEGETABLES!

1 Like


From a grammar point of view, wouldn’t an omnivorous restaurant be one that eats both plants and animals? grin

As far as people are concerned most omnivores eat both plants and animals most of the time.

It’s telling that you don’t actually write anything about the arguments I brought up but just about a side note (and other have brought up those arguments also but you are also for obvious reasons are also ignoring them). You can read about and talk with many vegetarian restaurant owners and chefs (as I have done in places I lived on the west and east coast) about their motivations - it’s really not a secret. As somebody wrote earlier it seems more that you like to write “provocative” (or uninformed) statements/questions on this board but once you get arguments against it you tend to have very little discussion points around it.


I don’t intend to offend you. Let’s take a look.

Whether something is elitist is an opinion. Vegetarians and especially vegans in my experience are extremely vocal and suggest that their choices should be everyone’s choices. How else would you describe that than elitist, judgemental, and/or morally superior? There are no facts here - only opinions offered as facts.

The carbon footprint of agriculture is pretty evenly distributed as near as I can tell. Raising veg or animals just isn’t that different. Want to make a difference? Less people. The environmental lobby cherry picks science for the conclusions they want. Look at the impact of mining lithium and other rare earth minerals for solar panels. Certainly not sustainable, but don’t talk about CSS. You can turn out sheep or cows in pasture but the watering and maintenance and harvest of veg “doesn’t count” for carbon footprint. Would you like grass for dinner? Algae for lunch? Animals lower in the food chain take things that are process intensive to make palatable (not good, palatable) and make them good. Do you want to eat what fish, chickens, cows, sheep eat? How about the processed vitamin and mineral supplements you have to eat to stay healthy on a vegan diet? But the environmental impact of those “don’t count.”

Now lets talk about renewable energy as it applies to the food supply chain. Look up baseload. All the lead and lithium and other nasty chemicals we need for energy storage. All the gold and silver and copper we need for inverters. That “doesn’t count” for the environmental lobby either. NIMBY.

Too. Many. People. No good solutions except make less people. Vegetarianism only helps if you have blinders on. Too many people. Bezos and Branson have it right. Our best chance of survival as a species is to get off the planet. Population density is NOT okay.

Not all vegetarians and vegans have your environmental concerns. I often hear about sentience among animals and not eating anything with a face as moral issues. Science shows interesting nervous response to pain in plants. What, in the end, do you propose we eat? Each other? Back to Soylent Green?

I’m okay with “I don’t really like meat.” The arguments for morals or the environment don’t hang together for me.

You asked.

You sound absolutely French!

That absolutely not true in my experience.[quote=“Auspicious, post:36, topic:25215”]
he carbon footprint of agriculture is pretty evenly distributed as near as I can tell. Raising veg or animals just isn’t that different.

Completely not true. Most scientific reports have animal farming contributing about 14-18% to the overall greenhouse emission. Veg farming is not even close to these levels.

That’s whataboutism - we are talking about animal farming vs veg farming. Your point is just deflection of missing arguments.


Are there vegan only restaurants? Can’t be many, if so.


One local place here in Ashlandia.
And looks like Bend soon. :slight_smile:

“Food is a pretty good prism through which to view humanity.”

― Jonathan Gold