However this is only in my personal situation. Let's run through it again if I didn't have food privilege, like, um, a shitton of people don't for all sorts of reasons. So say I do not have food privilege. I am Kate, or Alena, or someone else who will die/be caused significant harm/agony if I eat certain foods. My diet is restricted in some fashion and in a way I can not do anything about except not eat those things. This is a frustrating situation, there are no "cures" to it, and so I take the only option available to me by eating as healthy as I can and also eating what I can eat without death/harm/agony/etc. In this case, the only choice involved with food is trying to get a balanced diet and keep your body running with fewer resources than someone with food privilege. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but let us accept that this is the case. Now, we can still accept in this case that all lives are basically equal, and that the individual without food privilege still could theoretically not eat meat. In many cases, this would mean cutting out a lot of meals that are kind of necessary to the well-being of this person. In that case, the person can choose to eat meat, or choose to personally suffer. That's a very different choice than the one that the person with food privilege got to make. In fact, I don't really think it's a choice at all. It might look like there are two options, but there is actually only one that you can pick. Without food privilege, I would have to choose to eat meat. This is morally regrettable, because it does lead to loss of life. However, it is also completely and utterly morally different from the earlier scenario.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, I stand by calling choosing to end a life over choosing not to end a life due to convenience fucked up. However, I do not thing choosing the only available healthy diet over choosing not to end a life at the expense of personal well-being to be fucked up.
And I'm sincerely sorry that I, even indirectly, said otherwise. It was not my intention, but you're right, I was coming from a place of privilege and didn't check it before hand and this was, in short, bad.
I feel like I've been very long winded, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. And I hope if I've still missed something or you want to talk about some other aspect of this that you'll point it out. I know that we've clashed heads about this before, but I think that the basic argument comes down to my failure to recognize my privilege, and therefore a failure on both sides to recognize that we're arguing completely different scenarios half the time! I really think that if we talk it out we can understand each other better. (I certainly understand my own argument better having looked at it more closely and with the lens of food privilege) (which is going on my list of "privileges I have and need to recognize more often") (which is a list that actually exists in my diary).
So say I do not have food privilege. I am Kate, or Alena, or someone else who will die/be caused significant harm/agony if I eat certain foods. My diet is restricted in some fashion and in a way I can not do anything about except not eat those things. This is a frustrating situation, there are no "cures" to it, and so I take the only option available to me by eating as healthy as I can and also eating what I can eat without death/harm/agony/etc. In this case, the only choice involved with food is trying to get a balanced diet and keep your body running with fewer resources than someone with food privilege. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but let us accept that this is the case.
Now, we can still accept in this case that all lives are basically equal, and that the individual without food privilege still could theoretically not eat meat. In many cases, this would mean cutting out a lot of meals that are kind of necessary to the well-being of this person.
In that case, the person can choose to eat meat, or choose to personally suffer. That's a very different choice than the one that the person with food privilege got to make. In fact, I don't really think it's a choice at all. It might look like there are two options, but there is actually only one that you can pick.
Without food privilege, I would have to choose to eat meat. This is morally regrettable, because it does lead to loss of life. However, it is also completely and utterly morally different from the earlier scenario.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, I stand by calling choosing to end a life over choosing not to end a life due to convenience fucked up. However, I do not thing choosing the only available healthy diet over choosing not to end a life at the expense of personal well-being to be fucked up.
And I'm sincerely sorry that I, even indirectly, said otherwise. It was not my intention, but you're right, I was coming from a place of privilege and didn't check it before hand and this was, in short, bad.
I feel like I've been very long winded, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. And I hope if I've still missed something or you want to talk about some other aspect of this that you'll point it out. I know that we've clashed heads about this before, but I think that the basic argument comes down to my failure to recognize my privilege, and therefore a failure on both sides to recognize that we're arguing completely different scenarios half the time! I really think that if we talk it out we can understand each other better. (I certainly understand my own argument better having looked at it more closely and with the lens of food privilege) (which is going on my list of "privileges I have and need to recognize more often") (which is a list that actually exists in my diary).
Reply
Leave a comment