教育

为什么要传播中国文化【英国】为什么素食主义者在食肉者群体中引发了惊骇和嫌弃情感?

来源:网络整理 作者:路费不要钱 人气: 发布时间:2018-11-09 15:01
摘要:2018-11-09 15:01,路费不要钱为您报导关于【 为什么要传播中国文化【英国】为什么素食主义者在食肉者群体中引发了惊骇和嫌弃情感?】的详细解说,路费不要钱以图文形式为您展现 ,本文关注焦点《
< 为什么要传播中国文化p align="center">
为什么要传播中国文化【英国】为什么素食主义者在食肉者群体中引发了惊骇和嫌弃情感?



Food critic William Sitwell has resigned aseditor of Waitrose’s in-house magazine following a row over his astonishinglyhostile response to a freelance journalist who proposed a series of articles onveganism.

食品评述家威廉·西特韦尔已经辞去了维特罗斯内部杂志主编的地位,他陷入了对一个自由撰稿记者的敌意回响激发的骂百战百胜,后者针对素食主义投稿了一系列文章。

(译注:维特罗斯(Waitrose)为英国连锁超市品牌)

A statement from the food retailer saidthat John Brown Media – which produces the Waitrose & Partners FoodMagazine – had announced Sitwell would step down as editor of Waitrose &Partners Food magazine with immediate effect. The statement added:

这家食物零售商的一份声明称,刊行《维特罗斯及合资人食物杂志》的约翰布朗媒体已经公布西特韦尔将不再接受《维特罗斯及合资人食物杂志》主编的职务,立刻见效。这份声明还说:

In the light of William’s recent emailremarks, we’ve told John Brown Media that we believe this is the right andproper move - we will be working with them to appoint a new editor for themagazine. We have had a relationship with William for almost 20 years and aregrateful for his contribution to our business over that time.

鉴于威廉最近电子邮件中的评述,我们已经奉告约翰布朗媒体,我们信托这是正确且恰当的设施,我们将会和他们配合协作,给杂志委派一位新主编。我们与威廉保有相助相关差不多20年了,对付他在这段时刻内对我们买卖的孝顺我们暗示感激。

The row erupted after freelance journalistSelene Nelson pitched a series on “plant-based recipes” to the magazine, giventhe rise in popularity of vegan products in recent years. Waitrose, like manyUK supermarkets, has recently expanded its vegan product range and, asSitwell’s own article in The Times in January 2018 noted – in less thanwelcoming terms – the number of vegan cookbooks available has also grownconsiderably.

因为连年来素食产物加倍风行,自由撰稿记者赛琳娜·尼尔森向这份杂志投了一系列关于“植物性食谱”的稿子,之后争吵就发作了。就像许多英国超市一样,维特罗斯连年来扩大了其素食产物的范畴,犹如西特韦尔本身于2018年1月(以不那么讨喜的语言)颁发在《泰晤士报》的文章里留意到的那样,触手可及的素食烹饪书数目的增添也极端可观。

So Nelson’s proposal seemed pitch-perfect.Sitwell’s response, however, was decidedly off-key:

以是尼尔森的投稿好像长短常应景的。然而,西特韦尔作出的武断回应却并反面谐:

How about a series on killing vegans, oneby one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose theirhypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?

一个接着一个连串地杀掉纯素食主义者怎样?用各类要领给他们下套怎样?怎样恰内地质问他们?袒露他们的伪善?逼迫喂他们吃肉?逼他们吃牛排饮红酒?

As veganism is ever more routinelyencountered in daily life, hackneyed media stereotypes of vegans no longerresonate as they once did. Anti-vegan media hostility isn’t anything new.Sociological research published in 2011 documented how UK newspapers discreditveganism through ridicule, with vegans variously stereotyped as angry,militant, self-denying, sentimental, faddy, or joyless. As more people tryveganism, meet vegans and encounter vegan-friendly products and practices indaily life, the more tone deaf these stereotypes sound.

因为在一般糊口中打仗到纯素食主义成了更通俗的事了,媒体对纯素食主义者老生常谈的私见不再能像以前那样获得共识了。反纯素食主义媒体的恶意完全不是什么奇怪事了。2011年颁发的社会学研究,记录了英国报纸是怎样通过调侃松懈素食主义名声的,以格式编排把素食主义者涂抹成狂躁、好斗、自我否认、多愁善感、好赶时髦、或是沉闷无趣。跟着越多的人去实行纯素食,遇到纯素食者,以致打仗纯素食产物并在一般糊口中实践,这些私见听上去越是索然无味。

Sitwell’s vitriol contrasts markedly withthe polite restraint of Nelson’s rejoinder, in which she ironically expressedinterest “in exploring why just the mention of veganism seems to make somepeople so hostile”. The exchange is arguably emblematic of the contemporaryplague of entitled anger that toxifies public discourse whenever entitlement ischallenged, however politely.

西特韦尔的尖酸与尼尔森规矩禁止的辩驳形成了光鲜的比拟,在辩驳中她嘲讽地表达了对付“探讨为什么仅仅是说起纯素食主义就会让某些人云云心怀敌意”的乐趣。这场比武可以以为是现下“慷慨一怒”期间病的象征,每当资格和权力受到挑衅(不管方法上何等规矩),这种恼怒就会毒化民众话语。

One aspect of threatened entitlement in anon-vegan society is the presumed right to consume the bodies of other animals.In that context, research has suggested that vegans prompt defensiveness amongnon-vegans by implying a failure to act on a moral issue. Unresolved guiltplays out along a continuum ranging from framing one’s non-vegan practices as“moderate” (“I don’t eat much meat”) to anger and hostility towards vegans(rhetorically shooting the messenger, the way Sitwell appears to have done).The range, style and tone of these defensive responses are wearyingly familiarto vegans.

在一个非纯素食者社会中,被威胁权力中的一个方面就是推定的、吃掉其他动物身材的权力。在那种语境中,研究已经表白:素食主义者通过体现出非素食主义者无力遵照某个道德议题行事,会在他们中间激起防卫生理。不得疏解的负罪感在持续而同一的区间内爆发,范畴从把非素食主义者的做法伪饰为“适度的”(“我没有吃许多肉”),到针对素食主义者的恼怒和敌意(好像就是西特韦尔已经干过的以文辞射杀信使的方法)。这些防止回响的范畴、范例和语气是素食主义者认识到很憎恶的。

Food practices are socially powerfulmarkers of social and cultural identity, making actual or implied criticism ofthem personally and hurtfully felt. Meat-eating in particular has been closelyimplicated in the  construction ofmasculine identity. Challenging the dominance of non-vegan practices threatensthose social and cultural identities that are most closely dependent upon them.

饮食实践在社会上是社会和文化认同的有力符号,对他们小我私人作出真切的或是体现性的批驳,他们便会感受到受伤。尤其是吃肉,一向都和男性身份认同的构建有着细密接洽。挑衅非素食主义实践的统治职位,会威胁到那些其社会和文化认同最细密依靠它们的人群。

Poor taste

很差的品位

Criticism of Sitwell’s email led to thewheeling out of a stereotype of vegan humourlessness. We have written elsewhereabout how humour is used in popular culture to retrench oppressive powerrelations. Framing the expression of oppressive power relations as “humour”attempts to insulate it against critique, but we should remain alert to thepotency and power dynamics of such “jokes”.

对西特韦尔电邮的批驳导致了纯素食者没有诙谐感私见的形成。我们已在别处著述过,诙谐是如安在风行文化中被用于减消压制性权利相关的。把压制性权利相关涂抹成“诙谐”来表达,阴谋把它同批驳距脱离来,但对付此类“笑话”的效能和权利动态,我们应该保持鉴戒。   

Sitwell’s own initial apology denied theethical basis of veganism itself: “I love and respect people of all appetites,be they vegan, vegetarian or meat eaters – which I show week in week outthrough my writing, editing and broadcasting.” Veganism here is reduced to ataste preference, or consumer disposition – just one dietary option amongseveral – rather than an ethical imperative directed towards eliminating thehuman exploitation of other animals.

西特韦尔最初作出的致歉否定了素食主义自己的伦理基本:“我热爱并尊重饮食嗜好各异的人们,无论是纯素食者、素食者照旧食肉者,这一点在我周复一周的写作、编辑和广播中都有所浮现。”在这里素食主义被降格为一种口胃偏好,或是一种斲丧者的倾向,即只是多少种饮食选项之中的一种,而非发自伦理,直指没落人类对其他动物聚敛的一种定向必要。

In his initial response, Sitwell says hisprevious “good behaviour” is evidence that this recent episode is notrepresentative of his attitude and he apologises for offence taken by others,rather than his offensive action. But in doing this, he refuses to takeresponsibility for his own behaviour. Moreover, it provides a textbook exampleof a victim-blaming non-apology, in this case by using yet another anti-veganstereotype – over-sensitivity: “I apologise profusely to anyone who has beenoffended or upset by this.” Vegans (the unspecified “anyone”) are implicitlyprimed to take offence, while Sitwell’s own actions are rhetorically positionedas intrinsically innocent (as “innocent” as a “joke”).

在他最初的回应中,西特韦尔说他先前的“精采人格”是最近这段插曲不能代表他立场的证据,并且他是为其他人的动气而致歉,而不是为其自身的举动。但在做这件工作的时辰,他拒绝为他本身的举动认真。另外,这也提供了一个教科书式的去指责受害者的非致歉举动的案例,在本案例中是通过操作另一个反素食主义的私见,即太过敏感:“我毫无保存地为任何因此而气愤或心烦的人致歉”。纯素食者(即未明晰指明的“任何人”)被体现为一点就炸,而西特韦尔自身的举动被巧舌归置于本质上的无辜(和一个“笑话”一样“无辜”)。

The joke has cost Sitwell his editing job.But his outburst has at least opened up the opportunity for some more honestdiscussion about why veganism, like many other progressive social movements,stimulates such aggressive responses.

这个笑话已经让西特韦尔支付了主编事变的价钱。但他的发作至少已经为一些更真诚的接头缔造出了机遇,即为什么素食主义,如其他进许多步性的社会行为那样,会激起这种进攻性回响。

(评述区)

1、Nobody really fearsvegans but they do loathe them in the same way that many people loathe thosethat evangelise any kind of cheap and shoddy religion – because that’s whatveganism is; a cheap and shoddy religion for modern elites who are nowstruggling to display their moral superiority in any other way.

没人真的在怕纯素食者,但人们确实嫌弃他们,就和许多人嫌弃那些瞎传一些便宜又粗制滥造的宗教的人一样,由于这就是素食主义的实质,一种便宜的粗制滥造的宗教,是为那些竭尽所能、抓住任何方法来展示他们道德良好感的当代精英们筹备的。

Their main problem is that they can nolonger use sexual restraint to display their moral and ethical pre-eminence inthe ways in which they once did; anyone can f*** anyone now and the moreexotic, promiscuous and incontinent one’s sexual behaviour is, the freer andmore liberated one tends to be seen. Consequently, the sublimated religiousurge towards the expression of personal sanctity and purity – particularlyamongst those who feel they’re superior to almost every other class of humanbeing - must be expressed somehow. Consequently, the puritanical, virtuesignalling, anorexic whole- food posturing of vegans is the self-flagellationdu jour for those with more time, money and privilege than is good for them.

他们首要的题目是:他们没法再像已往那样用性禁止来显摆他们超群的伦理道德了,现在任何人都可以上任何人了,并且一小我私人的性举动越是奇特、紊乱、无控制,这小我私人看上去就越有自由息争放的倾向。因此,为表达个别神圣和纯洁的颠末升华的宗教激动必需以某种方法表达出来,在自以为比全部其他人类阶级更良好的群体中尤其云云。因此,纯素食者那清教徒式的、符号着美德的、厌食症范儿的追求自然康健食品的姿态,对付那些拥有更多时刻、款子和特权的人来说,是种当下风行的自我鞭笞,而不是真的对他们有益。       
 
2、I suspected thatcalling veganism a stupid middle class hobby would carry the same blasphemy lawpenalty on here as calling into question liberal climate change orthodoxy orthe widespread practise of murdering the unborn. Maybe the moderators fellasleep? Anyway, I’m off for a bacon sandwich. Catch you later.

我猜疑,在这里把素食主义称为一种愚笨的中产阶层喜爱会被处以渎神的刑罚,就像对自由主义者关于天气变革的正统说法,或是杀死未出生婴儿的通行做法暗示贰言一样。大概仲裁员都睡着了?不管奈何,我都要去吃培根三明治了。转头再来看。

3、There is a sense inwhich veganism (along with a number of other moral positions) is becoming amarker of social status.

有一种概念以为:素食主义者(连同许多其他的道德态度)正在酿成一种社会职位的标签。

And of course no one likes being moralisedat, especially if it comes packaged with a sense of social superiority, and ispractised by the more privileged members of society - or those who seek toidentify with them.

并且显然没人喜好说教,尤其是当它夹带一种社会良好感而且社会中更有特权的阶级或是那些东施效颦之徒在实践它的环境下。

4、I have met theoccasional cranky vegan, the sort who seek to guilt trip, but they are far fromtypical unless you seek them out on line. Why would anyone do that, Gert?

我时不时遇到过一些性情很臭的纯素食者,追求惭愧感之旅的那种,但他们没有什么代表性,除非你在网上把他们搜出来。不外为啥会有人去干这种事呢?

Most vegans and vegetarians are live andlet live people. I respect their concern for animals while I continue to eatmeat occasionally.  And there is noescaping:

大部门纯素食者和素食者是与己利便也与人利便的人。我尊重他们对动物的关怀,与此同时我继承时不时吃点肉。而没法躲避的是:

1) That among the factors contributing tothe destruction of forests at a time when we need them to absorb CO2 is thedemand for beef and produce to fatten livestock
2) Cattle are a major source of methane, agas that is worse for global warming than CO2.

1)当我们必要丛林接收二氧化碳时,导致丛林歼灭的身分之一即是对牛肉和用来养肥家畜的农产物的需求

2)牛只是甲烷的重要来历,在导致环球变暖方面,它比二氧化碳更糟糕。

5、Veganisim has becomethe moral vanity of a cultural elite who seek to demonstrate that their  wealth and overconsumption of resources isnot an environmental problem. By framing the problem of environmental damage asan individual choice, their denying their collective responsibility for contributing to the tragedy of the commons. Rejecting meat  won’t keep coal in the ground, it alsowon’t  do anything about the poverty thatforces people  to damage the environment.It will leave  you dependent onmanufactured fortified food

素食主义已然酿成了一个文化精英的道德虚荣心,他们想要证明的是他们的财产以及对资源的太过耗损,而不再是一个情形题目。通过把侵害情形的题目操弄成一种小我私人选择,他们也就否定了本身促成共业所背负的配合责任。拒绝肉食并不能把煤炭监禁在地上,对付差遣人们去侵害情形的清贫也是碌碌无为。这会让你依靠加工出来的强化食物。

6、Everyone makespersonal choices about what they eat - sometimes economic, sometimeshealth-related, sometimes religious, sometimes for a principle. Why pick on oneof these groups or, indeed, on any of them? And where does all the vitriol comefrom? It doesn’t seem to be based on any evidence.

关于吃什么,每小我私人城市作出小我私人的选择,偶然出于经济思量,偶然关乎康健,偶然由于宗教,偶然是为了某种原则。嗣魅真的,为什么要去刁难这些群体中的某一个,可能任何一个呢?全部这些刻薄尖刻都是从哪儿冒出来的?好像这并不是基于任何证据。

Mr Sitwell’s comments were definitely notfunny but rather were extremely odd. I assume that the Waitrose Food magazineis aimed at Waitrose shoppers and Mr Sitwell’s apparent refusal to cater forthe tastes of a substantial proportion of these may have had something to dowith his dismissal.

西特韦尔老师的评述绝对欠可笑,反而是极度的独特。我猜维特罗斯食物杂志针对的是顾主,而西特韦尔老师显而易见的拒绝迎合这些顾主中相等一部门人的口胃,大概和他被开除有关。

If he had the foresight to be a member ofthe NUJ, they may be able to negotiate his exit from the job more favourablybut it would seem that he more or less resigned with his bons mots.
假如他有先见之明,去成为(英国)世界记者协会的成员,他们也许还会更友爱地协商他的退职,可是看起来,他被解职或多或少是由于他的珠玑趣话。

7、Of course vegans are‘nice’ people; I never said they weren’t. Indeed, I’d argue that veganism isthe very apogee of late-capitalist, neurotic, bourgeois niceness. Although,I’ve noticed, it does tend to morph into passive aggressive truculence and thenoutright hostility as soon as one questions the dogmatic orthodoxies of the veganreligion.

纯素食者虽然是“好相处”的人;我从没说过他们不是。我真的主张素食主义正是晚期成本主义、神经质、布尔乔亚式柔美的最岑岭。然而我已经留意到的是,一旦有人质疑纯素食宗教教条主义的正统见识,它确实轻易演酿成被动进攻型的好斗以致直截了当的敌意。

The idea that a vanishingly tiny minorityof wealthy, self-righteous westerners are going to have any impact on theplanetary ecosystem, and the sustainability of the food chain, by only eatingplants is preposterous. Infact the word ‘preposterous’ doesn’t quite captureit.

以为只有难以察觉的少少数富饶、自诩公理的西方人会对地球的生态体系以及食品链的可一连性发生任何影响的设法是谬妄的。究竟上,“谬妄”这个词都无法完全归纳综合。

As I said, veganism is a psychological posture,a neurotic defence mechanism if you like, to assuage the guilt of refusing torelinquish privilege; the privilege afforded to those living in the verysocieties that are largely responsible for the environmental problems we nowface. As I said before, veganism also provides a means for the socialexpression of sanctity and purity now that sexual continence can no longerfunction in that way.

如我所说,素食主义是一种生理上的姿态,假如你喜好的话也可以说成是一种神经质的防卫机制,为的是减轻拒绝放弃特权带来的罪恶感;那些糊口在这个社会中的人有手段承担得起的特权,很洪流平上要为我们现在面临的情形题目认真。就像我以前说过的,素食主义也为面向社会示意神圣和纯洁提供了一种要领,既然节欲不再能以已往的那种方法起浸染。

In short, if folks want to eat plants, tothe exclusion of any other food group, they can knock themselves out as far asI’m concerned. But, let’s be clear, they do it for a range of personalpsychological reasons not because it’s going to make one jot of difference tothe world we actually live in.

简而言之,假如人们为了拒绝其他任何食品群类,而想去食用植物,据我所知他们会精疲力尽的。可是让我们说清晰,他们是出于一系列小我私人生理缘故起因而去这么干的,可不是由于这会对我们真正糊口的天下带来一点点的改变。

8、I don’t thinkveganism is a sham - I think the basic moral impulse behind it is easilyunderstood - but I do fear that it is part of a new “bourgeois” morality basedon hypersensitivity to suffering which includes: trigger warnings, safe spaces,Microaggressions, political correctness, suppression of speech which might makepeople uncomfortable and the rest.

我不以为素食主义是哄人的,我以为其背后根基的道德激动很轻易就能领略,但我确实很畏惧它会是一种新的“布尔乔亚”道德的一部门,它基于的是对灾祸的过敏症,个中包罗:触发警报、安详空间、微侵犯、政治正确、压抑那些也许会让人们不适的谈吐等等。

(译注:微侵犯(Microaggression)指人们透过肢体说话或肢体,架空或贬低差异人种、性别和弱势群体的征象)

Worse, those who lack this hypersensitivity(truth be told, who cannot afford to be so sensitive!) are excluded as thedeplorable poor.

更糟的是,那些没有患上这种过敏症的人(诚恳说就是那些没有手段为云云敏感买单的群体!)作为凄凉的贫民被排出。

9、Fear and loathing?ROFL.
Nope. Indifference mostly.

惊骇和嫌弃?笑到打滚。
并不是。多数是不鸟他们。

10、Loathing, clearly -but fear, not proven

嫌弃是很明明晰,至于惊骇,证据不敷。

11、I’m with Steve hereI really do not care too much what people choose to eat or not eat. I just wishthe wouldn’t pontificate about their choice and criticise  me for mine. I certainly do not feel ‘ffearand loathing’. That extreme language is what causes problems. What we eat isvery influenced by what is available and the years of agricultural and culturaldevelopment in the societies where we live. My personal choice is ‘something ofeverything and not too much of anything’ but then my childhood years were thepost war period and choice and amount were very limited. My other choice as anadult is to eat locally produced food and organic when possible made easier byhaving access in a local market.

我真的没那么在乎人们选什么或不选什么来吃。我只是但愿对付他们的选择他们不要好为人师,并由于我的选择而批驳我。我虽然没感受到‘惊骇和嫌弃’。造成题目的是极度的话语。我们吃的对象,受可得到的对象和我们所糊口社会中多年来的农业和文化成长的影响很大。我的小我私人选择是‘什么都来一点,什么都别太多’,但我的童年事月是在百战百胜后时期,当时的选择和数目都长短常有限的。作为一个成年人,我的另一个选择是吃当地出产的食品,也许的话选择有机的,借由当地超市工作就变得简朴了。

12、He had to go -Waitrose’s vegan lines have grown 70% in the past year.

他必需走人,客岁一年维特罗斯超市的纯素食货架排已经增添了70%。

13、We are HUMAN, theworld’s top predator. A human vegan is like a carnivore cow, it doesn’t makebiochemical or anthropological sense.

我们是人类,这个天下上的顶级掠食者。一个纯素食的人类,就犹如一头食肉的奶牛。这在生物化学某人类学角度上都是讲不通的。

MDs and nutritionists will also tell you itis impossible to have a balanced diet without supplementation. That in itselfis proof the vegan diet is not a healthy one, for humans. If you are a cow (whoshouldn’t be considered vegan, due to all the insects they eat while consuminggrasses), with a GI tract designed for a high fiber diet, eating veggies makessense.  

医学博士和营养学家们也会汇报你,没有增补是不行能有均衡的饮食的。这自己就证明白对付人类来说,纯素食并不是一种康健的饮食。假如你是一头奶牛(因为它们吃草的时辰会吃进去各类昆虫,也不该该视其为纯素食者), 西安地铁电缆事件,有着本就为高纤维饮食计划的消化道,吃全素才是公道的。

Form follows function, it is as simple asthat.

成果抉择形态,就这么简朴。

Respect mother nature: Humans NEED to eatmeat. It isn’t a choice, it is a biological necessity.

请尊重天然母亲:人类必要吃肉。这不是一种选择,这是一种生物上的肯定。

14、Top predator? Howmany animals have you killed for your food lately? (Or did you just browse theaisles of Tesco’s?)

顶级掠食者?你最近为了你的食品杀了几多动物?(照旧说你只是赏识乐购的货架通道?)

The age of animal agriculture is well onits way out, and not a moment too soon. We can’t call ourselves a civilisedsociety while supporting the abuse and deaths of over 56 billion animals peryear. Thankfully the world is waking up to that

畜牧业的期间即将殒命,这一刻不会太久了。当我们一边支持着凌虐和杀戮动物到达每年560多亿(只),我们是没法称号本身为文明社会的。谢天谢地这个天下正在对此醒觉。

Urges are different from biological need.You can’t be vegan and be healthy at the same time. It is basic biology. After5-7 years on a vegan diet you will be depleted of many B Vitamins. This is whyso many vegans suffer from anxiety and other neurological disorders relating tobrain inflammation (high homocysteine and low B12). Later in life, as thisdepletion progresses, it can manifest as movement disorders like Parkinsons.

激动和心理必要是差异的。你不行能成为一个纯素食者的同时又保持着康健。这是根基的生物学。颠末5至7年的纯素饮食后,你将会耗尽很多维生素B。这就是为什么云云多的纯素食者蒙受着焦急和其他与大脑炎症有关的脑神经失调(高同型半胱氨酸和低B12)之苦。在之后的糊口中,跟着这种消费的不绝成长,它也许会示意为行为障碍,好比帕金森病。

15、But, moreimportantly, the Independent says that Vegans are younger and so have lowermortality rates. They are trumpeting “veganism is good for you” by comparingmortality rates of well-off 30-year-olds with the average omnivore population.If they are trying to sell veganism by telling lies ….

但更重要的是,《独立报》声称纯素食者越发年青,以是衰亡率更低。他们宣扬着“素食主义对你有甜头”,要领是较量30几岁富饶生齿的衰亡率和不偏食生齿的均匀衰亡率。假如他们是靠扯谎来实行倾销素食主义的话...

16、No sensible farmerabuses his/her animals.
More vegan lies

没有任何一个明事理的农民会去凌虐他/她的动物。
又是纯素食者的谎话。

17、Even the NHS wasposting today (World Vegan Day) about how you can get all the nutrients youneed from a vegan diet. Both the American and British Dietetic Associationshave issued position statements that vegan diets are safe and healthy at allstages of life. I’ve been vegan for 11 years and my bloods are as healthy ifnot more so than they were before I was vegan. Do some vegans encounter diet relatedhealth problems? I’m sure they do, but that’s not because they’re eating avegan diet, it’s because they’re eating an unhealthy vegan diet.

乃至英国国度医疗处事体系本日(10月1日,天下素食日)都发了帖,讲的是你怎样通过纯素饮食获得你必要的全部营养。美国和英国饮食协会都颁发了态度声明,声称纯素饮食在生命的全部阶段都是安详康健的。我作为一个纯素食者已经11年了,我的血液假如没有比我成为纯素食者之前越发康健,也至少平等的康健。一些个纯素食者会遇到和饮食相干的康健题目吗?我必定他们会的,但这不是由于他们吃全素,而是由于他们吃全素吃得不康健。

18、The reason whyvegans have lower mortality is that they are richer (poor people cannot affordto be Vegan), and as richer people are less obese that is why they are lessobese.

为什么纯素食者的衰亡率更低是由于他们更富有(做纯素食者是贫民承担不起的),而作为更富有的人他们没那么肥胖,这就是他们不那么肥胖的缘故起因。  

That you can find three men out of amillion geniuses/near-geniuses who were vegetarians and none who were vegansimplies that meat-eaters are disproportionately more intelligent than vegans.

你在一百万个天才/准天才中只能找出三个素食主义者,并且个中纯素食者一个也没有,这表白了在心智方面,食肉者比纯素食者更高,且不成比例。

19、As an occasionalvegetarian, I admire the choice made by vegans. Clods like Sitwell shouldn’tlose their jobs simply because of the power of Twittermobs but they should facethe reality of what a billion more Asian consumers adopting Western-stylemeat-heavy diets means for all of us after we have eaten every animal on theplanet.

作为一个无意为之的素食主义者,我信服纯素食者作出的选择。西特韦尔这样的棒槌们不该该丢掉他们的事变,仅仅由于推特上那些暴民的能量,但他们应该面临这样一个实际:在我们已经吃遍了这个星球上全部的动物后,十亿多的亚洲斲丧者回收了西式的以肉为主食的饮食,这对我们全部人意味着什么。

20、If non-vegans feelguilty, there’s a chance that’s because vegans have made them feel as such:non-vegans least favourite thing about vegans is their proselytising andassumption that their choices and values place them on a higher moral planethan primitive carnivores (usually expressed in tones of disappointment, andthe cultish attitude that everyone is on a teleological progression toenlightenment — that is, abstention from consuming animal products). Certainlyit’s a minority’s of vegans that do so, but I guess it’s so annoying that itreally sticks in people’s minds.

假如非素食者感受到了惭愧,那就有也许是纯素食者让他们这样去感受的:非素食者最不喜好纯素食者的点就是他们的传教举动,以及假定他们的选择和代价观,相较于原始的食肉动物,把他们推上了道德的高地(凡是是以一种扫兴的语气在表达,以及狂热的立场,俨然每小我私人都处在等着被发蒙的历程中,即戒吃动物成品)。虽然了只有少部门的纯素食者会这么做,但我猜这其实太烦人了,以至于这档子破事儿真的杵在了人们的脑瓜里。

21、Veganism is a fad /a fashion like so many other food trends. Publishers and retailers leap uponthis hoping to profit. Go to any second hand bookshop and see the previous foodtrends that have withered or, to be fair, become incorporated in mainstreamfood culture. Step outside the university campuses and you will find thatveganism has not really gained traction.

同其他许多饮食趋势一样,素食主义是一时的狂热/一种民风。出书商和零售商跳上了这艘船,但愿可以或许赢利。去任何一家二手书店,看看以前那些已经凉透了的饮食趋势,公正起见,也可以看看那些逐步融入主流饮食文化的。走出大学校园你就会发明,纯素食主义还没有得到真正的牵引力。

22、If you don’t likeliving creatures being killed, I think a better target for your wrath would bethe armed forces and weapons manufacturers/exporters, all of whom are in thebusiness of killing people. I find this far more repugnant than killing animalswhich (in the vast majority of cases) would never have come into existence ifthey were not going to be eaten.

假如你不喜好看到活的对象被杀掉,那我以为你那些恼怒更好的行止是武装力气和兵器制造商/出口商,他们从事的都是杀人这一行。我认为这个要远比杀动物(在绝大大都环境下)来的让人反感,这些动物要不是会被吃掉,从一开始就不会存在。

23、I don’t feel anyguilt about eating meat because I am a member of a group (the human race)designed to eat meat as part of our diet.

我不会由于吃肉而感受到惭愧,是由于我是一个族群(人族)的一员,而这个族群的天赋计划就是以吃肉作为我们饮食的一部门。

A large number of vegetarians and veganslie about the impact on the environment of a balanced diet since they ignorethe unfitness of three-quarters of UK farmland for arable farming which is muchmore profitable than animal husbandry and pretend that the US feedlots outsideChicago are typical of all cattle-rearing throughout the beat’s life everywhereacross the planet.

大量的素食主义者和纯素食者在平衡饮食对情形的影响这件工作上说谎,由于他们无视了四分之三的英国农田不得当耕耘,而这要比畜牧业有利可图得多,还冒充芝加哥以外的美国豢养场是地球上全部养牛业的典范。

I don’t hate vegans for this: I just findtheir moral posturing based on lies, which are IMO immoral, irritating.

我并不由于这一点而痛恨纯素食者:我发明他们的道德姿态是以谎话为基本的,而这一点依我看就是不道德了,其实让人恼火。

24、While I’m not avegan but knowing some close relatives who are trying to go down the veganismpath, I’ve never found any of them to be ‘privileged’ or to sound ‘morallysuperior’. In any event, I eat meat or fish once or twice a week myself andwhether I or other meat eaters approve of it or not, veganism is clearlyrocketing in popularity and rapidly becoming as mainstream as vegetarianism.I’m in my 70s and years ago I remember vegetarians were regarded as oddballs(hence the early vegetarian restaurant chain being named ‘Cranks’). In the Eastof England city near me just a few months ago there were no vegan restaurantsat all. Now there are three. You can’t hold back the tide of change that issweeping the eating habits of this country. Mr Sitwell’s suggestion of “killingvegans one by one” is more likely to draw people towards an interest inveganism than if he’d put forward cogent, reasoned arguments supporting hisviews. Ah well, as he loves food and wine it may be the odd wording of hisemail is more to do with a particularly good vintage claret he’d discovered.

固然我不是纯素食者,但熟悉的一些明日亲正实行在素食主义的路上走下去,我从未发明他们中有任何一人‘享有特权’或是听上去有‘道德良好感’。不管奈何,我本身每周城市吃一两次肉或鱼,而无论我或其他食肉者是否拥护它,很明明纯素食主义正在公共中急速上升,而且敏捷变得和素食主义一样主流。我已经70多岁了,我还记得在许多年前,素食主义者被以为是怪胎(因此早期的素食连锁餐厅被定名为‘怪人(Cranks)’)。在我四面的英格兰东部都市,几个月前还没完全没有纯素食馆子。现在有了三家。对比西特韦尔老师拿出令人佩服、合乎逻辑的论证来支持他的概念,他谁人“一个接着一个杀掉纯素食者”的提议,更有也许拉近人们对纯素食主义的乐趣。好吧,因为他热爱食品和红酒,他电邮中的离奇语言,更大的也许是和他发明的一款年份出格好的红酒有关。
 

提示:如果您觉得本文不错,请点击分享给您的好友!谢谢
责任编辑:搜虎新闻